diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/60985-h/60985-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/60985-h/60985-h.htm | 7207 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7207 deletions
diff --git a/old/60985-h/60985-h.htm b/old/60985-h/60985-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index a3aaa0e..0000000 --- a/old/60985-h/60985-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7207 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright. - </title> - - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - -<style type="text/css"> - -a { - text-decoration: none; -} - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - -h1,h2,h3 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; -} - -hr { - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - clear: both; - width: 65%; - margin-left: 17.5%; - margin-right: 17.5%; -} - -ul { - list-style-type: none; -} - -li { - margin-top: .5em; - padding-left: 2em; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -p { - margin-top: 0.5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: 0.5em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -table { - margin: 1em auto 1em auto; - max-width: 40em; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -td { - padding-left: 2.25em; - padding-right: 0.25em; - vertical-align: top; - text-indent: -2em; -} - -.tdr { - text-align: right; -} - -.tdpg { - vertical-align: bottom; - text-align: right; -} - -.box { - margin: auto; - max-width: 25em; - border: thin solid black; - padding: 0.25em; -} - -.center { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em; -} - -.figcenter { - margin: 3em auto auto auto; - text-align: center; -} - -.larger { - font-size: 150%; -} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 4%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; -} - -.smaller { - font-size: 80%; -} - -.smcap { - font-variant: small-caps; - font-style: normal; -} - -.spacer { - margin-left: 2em; - margin-right: 2em; -} - -.tb { - margin-top: 2em; -} - -.titlepage { - text-align: center; - margin-top: 3em; - text-indent: 0em; -} - -@media handheld { - -img { - max-width: 100%; - width: auto; - height: auto; -} -} - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -Project Gutenberg's Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Misinforming a Nation - -Author: Willard Huntington Wright - -Release Date: December 20, 2019 [EBook #60985] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISINFORMING A NATION *** - - - - -Produced by WebRover, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<p class="titlepage larger">MISINFORMING A NATION</p> - -<hr /> - -<div class="box"> - -<p class="center">BOOKS BY MR. WRIGHT</p> - -<hr /> - -<ul> -<li>MISINFORMING A NATION</li> -<li>MODERN PAINTING: Its Tendency and Meaning</li> -<li>WHAT NIETZSCHE TAUGHT</li> -<li>THE MAN OF PROMISE</li> -<li>THE CREATIVE WILL</li> -</ul> - -<p class="center smaller">IN PREPARATION</p> - -<ul> -<li>MODERN LITERATURE</li> -<li>PRINCIPLES OF ÆSTHETIC FORM AND ORGANIZATION</li> -</ul> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div class="box"> - -<p class="center larger"><i>Misinforming a Nation</i></p> - -<p class="center larger"><span class="smaller"><i>by Willard Huntington Wright</i></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter" style="width: 100px;"> -<img src="images/candelabra.jpg" width="100" height="150" alt="A candelabra" /> -</div> - -<p class="titlepage"><i>New York</i> <span class="spacer"><i>B. W. Huebsch</i></span> <i>MCMXVII</i></p> - -</div> - -<p class="titlepage">COPYRIGHT, 1917, BY<br /> -B. W. HUEBSCH</p> - -<p class="titlepage smaller">PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</p> - -<hr /> - -<h2>CONTENTS</h2> - -<table summary="Contents"> - <tr> - <td class="tdr smaller">CHAPTER</td> - <td></td> - <td class="tdpg smaller">PAGE</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">I</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Colonizing America</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">1</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">II</td> - <td><span class="smcap">The Novel</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">24</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">III</td> - <td><span class="smcap">The Drama</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">52</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">IV</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Poetry</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">68</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">V</td> - <td><span class="smcap">British Painting</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">85</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">VI</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Non-British Painting</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">102</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">VII</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Music</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">122</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">VIII</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Science</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_VIII">148</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">IX</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Inventions, Photography, Æsthetics</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_IX">160</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">X</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Philosophy</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_X">174</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">XI</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Religion</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_XI">195</a></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdr">XII</td> - <td><span class="smcap">Two Hundred Omissions</span></td> - <td class="tdpg"><a href="#CHAPTER_XII">218</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p> - -<h1>MISINFORMING A NATION</h1> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_I">I<br /> -<span class="smaller">COLONIZING AMERICA</span></h2> - -<p>The intellectual colonization of America by England -has been going on for generations. Taking -advantage of her position of authority—a position -built on centuries of æsthetic tradition—England -has let pass few opportunities to ridicule -and disparage our activities in all lines of creative -effort, and to impress upon us her own assumed -cultural superiority. Americans, lacking that -sense of security which long-established institutions -would give them, have been influenced by -the insular judgments of England, and, in an effort -to pose as <i lang="fr">au courant</i> of the achievements of -the older world, have adopted in large degree the -viewpoint of Great Britain. The result has been -that for decades the superstition of England’s pre-eminence -in the world of art and letters has -spread and gained power in this country. Our -native snobbery, both social and intellectual, has -kept the fires of this superstition well supplied<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span> -with fuel; and in our slavish imitation of England—the -only country in Europe of which we have -any intimate knowledge—we have de-Americanized -ourselves to such an extent that there has -grown up in us a typical British contempt for our -own native achievements.</p> - -<p>One of the cardinal factors in this Briticization -of our intellectual outlook is the common language -of England and America. Of all the civilized -nations of the world, we are most deficient as -linguists. Because of our inability to speak -fluently any language save our own, a great barrier -exists between us and the Continental countries. -But no such barrier exists between America -and England; and consequently there is a constant -exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions. -English literature is at our command; English -criticism is familiar to us; and English standards -are disseminated among us without the impediment -of translation. Add to this lingual <i lang="fr">rapprochement</i> -the traditional authority of Great -Britain, together with the social aspirations of -moneyed Americans, and you will have both the -material and the psychological foundation on -which the great edifice of English culture has -been reared in this country.</p> - -<p>The English themselves have made constant -and liberal use of these conditions. An old and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span> -disquieting jealousy, which is tinctured not a little -by resentment, has resulted in an open contempt -for all things American. And it is not unnatural -that this attitude should manifest itself -in a condescending patronage which is far from -being good-natured. Our literature is derided; -our artists are ridiculed; and in nearly every field -of our intellectual endeavor England has found -grounds for disparagement. It is necessary only -to look through British newspapers and critical -journals to discover the contemptuous and not -infrequently venomous tone which characterizes -the discussion of American culture.</p> - -<p>At the same time, England grasps every opportunity -for foisting her own artists and artisans -on this country. She it is who sets the standard -which at once demolishes our individual expression -and glorifies the efforts of Englishmen. Our -publishers, falling in line with this campaign, import -all manner of English authors, eulogize them -with the aid of biased English critics, and neglect -better writers of America simply because they have -displeased those gentlemen in London who sit in -judgment upon our creative accomplishments. -Our magazines, edited for the most part by timid -nobodies whose one claim to intellectual distinction -is that they assiduously play the parrot to -British opinion, fill their publications with the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span> -work of English mediocrities and ignore the more -deserving contributions of their fellow-countrymen.</p> - -<p>Even our educational institutions disseminate -the English superstition and neglect the great -men of America; for nowhere in the United States -will you find the spirit of narrow snobbery so -highly developed as in our colleges and universities. -Recently an inferior British poet came here, -and, for no other reason apparently save that he -was English, he was made a professor in one of -our large universities! Certainly his talents did -not warrant this appointment, for there are at least -a score of American poets who are undeniably -superior to this young Englishman. Nor has he -shown any evidences of scholarship which would -justify the honor paid him. But an Englishman, -if he seek favors, needs little more than proof of -his nationality, whereas an American must give -evidence of his worth.</p> - -<p>England has shown the same ruthlessness and -unscrupulousness in her intellectual colonization -of America as in her territorial colonizations; and -she has also exhibited the same persistent shrewdness. -What is more, this cultural extension policy -has paid her lavishly. English authors, to -take but one example, regard the United States as -their chief source of income. If it were the highest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span> -English culture—that is, the genuinely significant -scholarship of the few great modern British -creators—which was forced upon America, there -would be no cause for complaint. But the governing -influences in English criticism are aggressively -middle-class and chauvinistic, with the result -that it is the British <i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> who has stifled -our individual expression, and misinformed us on -the subject of European culture.</p> - -<p>No better instance of this fact can be pointed -to than the utterly false impression which America -has of French attainments. French genius -has always been depreciated and traduced by the -British; and no more subtle and disgraceful campaign -of derogation has been launched in modern -times than the consistent method pursued by the -English in misinterpreting French ideals and accomplishments -to Americans. To England is due -largely, if not entirely, the uncomplimentary opinion -that Americans have of France—an opinion -at once distorted and indecent. To the average -American a French novel is regarded merely as a -salacious record of adulteries. French periodicals -are looked upon as collections of prurient anecdotes -and licentious pictures. And the average -French painting is conceived as a realistic presentation -of feminine nakedness. So deeply rooted -are these conceptions that the very word “French”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span> -has become, in the American’s vocabulary, an adjective -signifying all manner of sexual abnormalities, -and when applied to a play, a story, or an -illustration, it is synonymous with “dirty” and -“immoral.” This country has yet to understand -the true fineness of French life and character, or -to appreciate the glories of French art and literature; -and the reason for our distorted ideas is that -French culture, in coming to America, has been -filtered through the nasty minds of middle-class -English critics.</p> - -<p>But it is not our biased judgment of the Continental -nations that is the most serious result -of English misrepresentation; in time we will come -to realize how deceived we were in accepting England’s -insinuations that France is indecent, Germany -stupid, Italy decadent, and Russia barbarous. -The great harm done by England’s -contemptuous critics is in belittling American -achievement. Too long has <i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> British culture -been forced upon the United States; and we -have been too gullible in our acceptance of it without -question. English critics and English periodicals -have consistently attempted to discourage the -growth of any national individualism in America, -by ridiculing or ignoring our best æsthetic efforts -and by imposing upon us their own insular criteria. -To such an extent have they succeeded that an<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span> -American author often must go to England before -he will be accepted by his own countrymen. Thus -purified by contact with English culture, he finds -a way into our appreciation.</p> - -<p>But on the other hand, almost any English -author—even one that England herself has little -use for—can acquire fame by visiting this country. -Upon his arrival he is interviewed by the -newspapers; his picture appears in the “supplements”; -his opinions emblazon the headlines and -are discussed in editorials; and our publishers -scramble for the distinction of bringing out his -wares. In this the publishers, primarily commercial, -reveal their business acumen, for they are -not unaware of the fact that the “literary” sections -of our newspapers are devoted largely to British -authors and British letters. So firmly has the -English superstition taken hold of our publishers -that many of them print their books with English -spelling. The reason for this un-American practice, -so they explain, is that the books may be -ready for an English edition without resetting. -The English, however, do not use American spelling -at all, though, as a rule, the American editions -of English books are much larger than the English -edition of American books. But the English do -not like our spelling; therefore we gladly arrange -matters to their complete satisfaction.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p> - -<p>The evidences of the American’s enforced belief -in English superiority are almost numberless. -Apartment houses and suburban sub-divisions are -named after English hotels and localities. The -belief extends even to the manufacturers of certain -brands of cigarettes which, for sale purposes, -are advertised as English, although it would be -difficult to find a box of them abroad. The -American actor, in order to gain distinction, apes -the dress, customs, intonation and accent of Englishmen. -His great ambition is to be mistaken -for a Londoner. This pose, however, is not all -snobbery: it is the outcome of an earnest desire to -appear superior; and so long has England insisted -upon her superiority that many Americans have -come to adopt it as a cultural fetish.</p> - -<p>Hitherto this exalted intellectual guidance has -been charitably given us: never before, as now, -has a large fortune been spent to make America -pay handsomely for the adoption of England’s -provincialism. I refer to the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -which, by a colossal campaign of flamboyant -advertising, has been scattered broadcast over -every state in the union.</p> - -<p>No more vicious and dangerous educational influence -on America can readily be conceived than -the articles in this encyclopædia. They distort -the truth and disseminate false standards. America<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span> -is now far enough behind the rest of the civilized -world in its knowledge of art, without having -added to that ignorance the erroneous impressions -created by this partial and disproportioned -English work; for, in its treatment of the world’s -progress, it possesses neither universality of outlook -nor freedom from prejudice in its judgments—the -two primary requisites for any work which -lays claim to educational merit. Taken as a -whole, the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> divisions on culture are -little more than a brief for British art and science—a -brief fraught with the rankest injustice toward -the achievements of other nations, and especially -toward those of America.</p> - -<p>The distinguishing feature of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> is its petty national prejudice. This -prejudice appears constantly and in many disguises -through the Encyclopædia’s pages. It -manifests itself in the most wanton carelessness -in dealing with historical facts; in glaring inadequacies -when discussing the accomplishments of -nations other than England; in a host of inexcusable -omissions of great men who do not happen -to be blessed with English nationality; in venom -and denunciation of viewpoints which do not happen -to coincide with “English ways of thinking”; -and especially in neglect of American endeavor. -Furthermore, the <cite>Britannica</cite> shows unmistakable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span> -signs of haste or carelessness in preparation. Information -is not always brought up to date. -Common proper names are inexcusably misspelled. -Old errors remain uncorrected. Inaccuracies -abound. Important subjects are ignored. And -only in the field of English activity does there -seem to be even an attempt at completeness.</p> - -<p>The <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, if accepted unquestioningly -throughout this country as an -authoritative source of knowledge, would retard -our intellectual development fully twenty years; -for so one-sided is its information, so distorted are -its opinions, so far removed is it from being an -international and impartial reference work, that -not only does it give inadequate advice on vital -topics, but it positively creates false impressions. -Second- and third-rate Englishmen are given -space and praise much greater than that accorded -truly great men of other nations; and the eulogistic -attention paid English endeavor in general is -out of all proportion to its deserts. In the following -chapters I shall show specifically how British -culture is glorified and exaggerated, and with -what injustice the culture of other countries is -treated. And I shall also show the utter failure -of this Encyclopædia to fulfill its claim of being -a “universal” and “objective” reference library. -To the contrary, it will be seen that the <cite>Britannica</cite><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span> -is a narrow, parochial, opinionated work of dubious -scholarship and striking unreliability.</p> - -<p>With the somewhat obscure history of the birth -of the Eleventh Edition of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, or with the part played in that history -by Cambridge University and the London -<cite>Times</cite>, I am not concerned. Nor shall I review -the unethical record of the two issues of the Encyclopædia. -To those interested in this side of -the question I suggest that they read the following -contributions in Reedy’s <cite>Mirror</cite>: <cite>The Same -Old Slippery Trick</cite> (March 24, 1916). <cite>The -Encyclopædia Britannica Swindle</cite> (April 7, -1916). <cite>The Encyclopædia Britannica Fake</cite> -(April 14, 1916); and also the article in the -March 18 (1916) <cite>Bellman</cite>, <cite>Once More the -Same Old Game</cite>.</p> - -<p>Such matters might be within the range of forgiveness -if the contents of the <cite>Britannica</cite> were -what were claimed for them. But that which -does concern me is the palpable discrepancies between -the statements contained in the advertising, -and the truth as revealed by a perusal of the articles -and biographies contained in the work itself. -The statements insisted that the <cite>Britannica</cite> was -a <em>supreme</em>, <em>unbiased</em>, and <em>international</em> reference -library—an impartial and objective review of the -world; and it was on these statements, repeated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span> -constantly, that Americans bought the work. The -truth is that the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, in its -main departments of culture, is characterized by -misstatements, inexcusable omissions, rabid and -patriotic prejudices, personal animosities, blatant -errors of fact, scholastic ignorance, gross neglect -of non-British culture, an astounding egotism, and -an undisguised contempt for American progress.</p> - -<p>Rarely has this country witnessed such indefensible -methods in advertising as those adopted -by the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> exploiters. The “copy” has -fairly screamed with extravagant and fabulous exaggerations. -The vocabulary of hyperbole has -been practically exhausted in setting forth the dubious -merits of this reference work. The ethics -and decencies of ordinary honest commerce have -been thrown to the wind. The statements made -day after day were apparently concocted irrespective -of any consideration save that of making a -sale; for there is an abundance of evidence to show -that the Encyclopædia was not what was claimed -for it.</p> - -<p>With the true facts regarding this encyclopædia -it is difficult to reconcile the encomiums of -many eminent Americans who, by writing eulogistic -letters to the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editor concerning the -exalted merits of his enterprise, revealed either -their unfamiliarity with the books in question or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span> -their ignorance of what constituted an educational -reference work. These letters were duly photographed -and reproduced in the advertisements, -and they now make interesting, if disconcerting, -reading for the non-British student who put his -faith in them and bought the <cite>Britannica</cite>. There -is no need here to quote from these letters; for a -subsequent inspection of the work thus recommended -must have sufficiently mortified those of -the enthusiastic correspondents who were educated -and had consciences; and the others would be unmoved -by any revelations of mine.</p> - -<p>Mention, however, should be made of the remarks -of the American Ambassador to Great Britain -at the banquet given in London to celebrate -the Encyclopædia’s birth. This gentleman, in an -amazing burst of unrestrained laudation, said he -believed that “it is the general judgment of the -scholars and the investigators of the world that -the one book to which they can go for the most -complete, comprehensive, thorough, and absolutely -precise statements of fact upon every subject of -human interest is the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>.” -This is certainly an astonishing bit of eulogy. -Its dogmatic positiveness and its assumption of -infallibility caused one critic (who is also a great -scholar) to write: “With all due respect for our -illustrious fellow-countryman, the utterance is a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span> -most superlative absurdity, unless it was intended -to be an exercise of that playful and elusive -American humor which the apperceptions of our -English cousins so often fail to seize, much less -appreciate.” But there were other remarks of -similar looseness at the banquet, and the dinner -evidently was a greater success than the books -under discussion.</p> - -<p>Even the English critics themselves could not -accept the <cite>Britannica</cite> as a source for “the most -comprehensive, thorough and absolutely precise -statements on every subject of human interest.” -Many legitimate objections began appearing. -There is space here to quote only a few. The -London <cite>Nation</cite> complains that “the particularly -interesting history of the French Socialist movement -is hardly even sketched.” And again it -says: “The naval question is handled on the -basis of the assumption which prevailed during -our recent scare; the challenge of our Dreadnought -building is hardly mentioned; the menace -of M. Delcassé’s policy of encirclement is ignored, -and both in the article on Germany and in the -articles on Europe, Mr. McKenna’s panic figures -and charges of accelerated building are treated as -the last word of historical fact.” The same publication, -criticising the article on Europe, says: -“There is nothing but a dry and summarized general<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span> -history, ending with a paragraph or two on -the Anglo-German struggle with the moral that -‘Might is Right.’ It is history of Europe which -denies the idea of Europe.”</p> - -<p>Again, we find evidence of a more direct character, -which competently refutes the amazing announcement -of our voluble Ambassador to Great -Britain. In a letter to the London <cite>Times</cite>, an -indignant representative of Thomas Carlyle’s -family objects to the inaccurate and biased manner -in which Carlyle is treated in the Encyclopædia. -“The article,” he says, “was evidently -written many years ago, before the comparatively -recent publication of new and authentic material, -and nothing has been done to bring it up to date.... As -far as I know, none of the original errors -have been corrected, and many others of a worse -nature have been added. The list of authorities -on Carlyle’s life affords evidence of ignorance or -partisanship.”</p> - -<p>“Evidently,” comments a shrewd critic who is -not impressed either by the Ambassador’s panegyric -or the photographed letters, “the great -man’s family, and the public in general, have a -reasonable cause of offense, and they may also -conclude that if the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> can -blunder when handling such an approachable and -easy British subject as Carlyle, it can be reasonably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span> -expected to do worse on other matters which -are not only absolutely foreign, but intensely distasteful -to the uninformed and prejudiced scribes -to whom they seem to be so frequently, if not -systematically, assigned.”</p> - -<p>The expectation embodied in the above comment -is more fully realized perhaps than the -writer of those words imagined; and the purpose -of this book is to reveal the blundering and misleading -information which would appear to be -the distinguishing quality of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -articles on culture. Moreover, as I have said, -and as I shall show later, few subjects are as “intensely -distasteful” to the “uninformed and -prejudiced” British critics as is American achievement. -One finds it difficult to understand how -any body of foreigners would dare offer America -the brazen insult which is implied in the prodigal -distribution of these books throughout the country; -for in their unconquerable arrogance, their -unveiled contempt for this nation—the outgrowth -of generations of assumed superiority—they surpass -even the London critical articles dealing -with our contemporary literary efforts.</p> - -<p>Several of our more courageous and pro-American -scholars have called attention to the inadequacies -and insularities in the <cite>Britannica</cite>, but -their voices have not been sufficiently far-reaching<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span> -to counteract either the mass or the unsavory -character of the advertising by which this unworthy -and anti-American encyclopædia was -foisted upon the United States. Conspicuous -among those publications which protested was -the <cite>Twentieth Century Magazine</cite>. That periodical, -to refer to but one of its several criticisms, -pointed out that the article on <cite>Democracy</cite> is “confined -to the alleged democracies of Greece and -their distinguished, if some time dead, advocates. -Walt Whitman, Mazzini, Abraham Lincoln, -Edward Carpenter, Lyof Tolstoi, Switzerland, -New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Iceland, Oregon -are unknown quantities to this anonymous -classicist.”</p> - -<p>It is also noted that the author of the articles -on <cite>Sociology</cite> “is not very familiar with the American -sociologists, still less with the German, and -not at all with the French.” The article is “a -curious evidence of editorial insulation,” and the -one on <cite>Economics</cite> “betrays freshened British -capitalistic insularity.” In this latter article, -which was substituted for Professor Ingram’s -masterly and superb history of political economy -in the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> Ninth Edition, “instead of a -catholic, scientific survey of economic thought, we -have a ‘fair trade’ pamphlet, which actually includes -reference to Mr. Chamberlain,” although<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span> -the names of Henry George, Karl Marx, Friedrich -Engels, John A. Hobson, and William Smart -are omitted.</p> - -<p>The Eleventh Edition, concludes the <cite>Twentieth -Century</cite>, after recording many other specimens of -ignorance and inefficiency, “is not only insular; -it betrays its class-conscious limitation in being -woefully defective in that prophetic instinct which -guided Robertson Smith in his choice of contributors -to the Ninth Edition, and the contributors -themselves in their treatment of rapidly -changing subjects.” Robertson Smith, let it be -noted, stood for fairness, progressiveness, and -modernity; whereas the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> present editor -is inflexibly reactionary, provincial, and unjust -to an almost incredible degree.</p> - -<p>The foregoing quotations are not isolated objections: -there were others of similar nature. -And these few specimens are put down here -merely to show that there appeared sufficient evidence, -both in England and America, to establish -the purely imaginary nature of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -claims of completeness and inerrancy, and to reveal -the absurdity of the American Ambassador’s -amazing pronouncement. Had the sale of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> been confined to that -nation whose culture it so persistently and dogmatically -glorifies at the expense of the culture<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span> -of other nations, its parochial egotism would not -be America’s concern. But since this reference -work has become an American institution and has -forced its provincial mediocrity into over 100,000 -American homes, schools and offices, the astonishing -truth concerning its insulting ineptitude has -become of vital importance to this country. Its -menace to American educational progress can no -longer be ignored.</p> - -<p>England’s cultural campaign in the United -States during past decades has been sufficiently -insidious and pernicious to work havoc with our -creative effort, and to retard us in the growth of -that self-confidence and self-appreciation which -alone make the highest achievement possible. -But never before has there been so concentrated -and virulently inimical a medium for British influence -as the present edition of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>. These books, taken in conjunction -with the methods by which they have been foisted -upon us, constitute one of the most subtle and -malign dangers to our national enlightenment -and development which it has yet been our misfortune -to possess; for they bid fair to remain, -in large measure, the source of America’s information -for many years to come.</p> - -<p>The regrettable part of England’s intellectual -intrigues in the United States is the subservient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span> -and docile acquiescence of Americans themselves. -Either they are impervious to England’s sneers -and deaf to her insults, or else their snobbery is -stronger than their self-respect. I have learned -from Britishers themselves, during an extended -residence in London, that not a little of their contempt -for Americans is due to our inordinate -capacity for taking insults. Year after year -English animus grows; and to-day it is the uncommon -thing to find an English publication -which, in discussing the United States and its culture, -does not contain some affront to our intelligence.</p> - -<p>It is quite true, as the English insist, that we -are painfully ignorant of Europe; but it must not -be forgotten that the chief source of that ignorance -is England herself. And the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, if accepted as authoritative, will go -far toward emphasizing and extending that ignorance. -Furthermore, it will lessen even the -meagre esteem in which we now hold our own -accomplishments and potentialities; for, as the -following pages will show, the <cite>Britannica</cite> has persistently -discriminated against all American endeavor, -not only in the brevity of the articles and -biographies relating to this country and in the -omissions of many of our leading artists and -scientists, but in the bibliographies as well. And<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span> -it must be remembered that broad and unprejudiced -bibliographies are essential to any worthy -encyclopædia: they are the key to the entire tone -of the work. The conspicuous absence of many -high American authorities, and the inclusion of -numerous reactionary and often dubious English -authorities, sum up the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> attitude.</p> - -<p>However, as I have said, America, if the principal, -is not the only country discriminated -against. France has fallen a victim to the Encyclopædia’s -suburban patriotism, and scant justice -is done her true greatness. Russia, perhaps -even more than France, is culturally neglected; -and modern Italy’s æsthetic achievements are -given slight consideration. Germany’s science -and her older culture fare much better at the -hands of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors than do the efforts -of several other nations; but Germany, too, -suffers from neglect in the field of modern endeavor.</p> - -<p>Even Ireland does not escape English prejudice. -In fact, it can be only on grounds of -national, political, and personal animosity that -one can account for the grossly biased manner in -which Ireland, her history and her culture, is dealt -with. To take but one example, regard the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> treatment of what has come to be -known as the Irish Literary Revival. Among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span> -those conspicuous, and in one or two instances -world-renowned, figures who do not receive biographies -are J. M. Synge, Lady Gregory, Lionel -Johnson, Douglas Hyde, and William Larminie. -(Although Lionel Johnson’s name appears in the -article on <em>English</em> literature, it does not appear -in the Index—a careless omission which, in victimizing -an Irishman and not an Englishman, is -perfectly in keeping with the deliberate omissions -of the <cite>Britannica</cite>.)</p> - -<p>Furthermore, there are many famous Irish -writers whose names are not so much as mentioned -in the entire Encyclopædia—for instance, -Standish O’Grady, James H. Cousins, John Todhunter, -Katherine Tynan, T. W. Rolleston, Nora -Hopper, Jane Barlow, Emily Lawless, “A. E.” -(George W. Russell), John Eglinton, Charles -Kickam, Dora Sigerson Shorter, Shan Bullock, -and Seumas MacManus. Modern Irish literature -is treated with a brevity and an injustice -which are nothing short of contemptible; and -what little there is concerning the new Irish renaissance -is scattered here and there in the articles -on <em>English</em> literature! Elsewhere I have -indicated other signs of petty anti-Irish bias, -especially in the niggardly and stupid treatment -accorded George Moore.</p> - -<p>Although such flagrant inadequacies in the case<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span> -of European art would form a sufficient basis for -protest, the really serious grounds for our indignation -are those which have to do with the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -neglect of America. That is why I have -laid such emphasis on this phase of the Encyclopædia. -It is absolutely necessary that this country -throw off the yoke of England’s intellectual -despotism before it can have a free field for an -individual and national cultural evolution. -America has already accomplished much. She -has contributed many great figures to the world’s -progress. And she is teeming with tremendous -and splendid possibilities. To-day she stands in -need of no other nation’s paternal guidance. In -view of her great powers, of her fine intellectual -strength, of her wide imagination, of her already -brilliant past, and of her boundless and exalted -future, such a work as the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -should be resented by every American to -whom the welfare of his country is of foremost -concern, and in whom there exists one atom of -national pride.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_II">II<br /> -<span class="smaller">THE NOVEL</span></h2> - -<p>Let us inspect first the manner in which the -world’s great modern novelists and story-tellers -are treated in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. No -better department could be selected for the purpose; -for literature is the most universal and -popular art. The world’s great figures in fiction -are far more widely known than those in painting -or music; and since it is largely through literature -that a nation absorbs its cultural ideas, especial -interest attaches to the way that writers are interpreted -and criticised in an encyclopædia.</p> - -<p>It is disappointing, therefore, to discover the -distorted and unjust viewpoint of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. -An aggressive insular spirit is shown in both the -general literary articles and in the biographies. -The importance of English writers is constantly -exaggerated at the expense of foreign authors. -The number of biographies of British writers included -in the Encyclopædia far overweighs the -biographical material accorded the writers of -other nations. And superlatives of the most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span> -sweeping kind are commonly used in describing -the genius of these British authors, whereas in the -majority of cases outside of England, criticism, -when offered at all, is cool and circumscribed and -not seldom adverse. There are few British writers -of any note whatever who are not taken into -account; but many authors of very considerable -importance belonging to France, Germany, Italy, -Russia, and the United States are omitted entirely.</p> - -<p>In the Encyclopædia’s department of literature, -as in other departments of the arts, the pious -middle-class culture of England is carefully and -consistently forced to the front. English provincialism -and patriotism not only dominate the -criticism of this department, but dictate the -amount of space which is allotted the different -nations. The result is that one seeking in this -encyclopædia adequate and unprejudiced information -concerning literature will fail completely in -his quest. No mention whatever is made of many -of the world’s great novelists (provided, of course, -they do not happen to be British); and the information -given concerning the foreign authors -who are included is, on the whole, meagre and -biased. If, as is natural, one should judge the -relative importance of the world’s novelists by -the space devoted to them, one could not escape<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span> -the impression that the literary genius of the -world resides almost exclusively in British writers.</p> - -<p>This prejudiced and disproportionate treatment -of literature would not be so regrettable if the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> criticisms were cosmopolitan in character, -or if its standard of judgment was a purely -literary one. But the criteria of the Encyclopædia’s -editors are, in the main, moral and puritanical. -Authors are judged not so much by their -literary and artistic merits as by their <i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> -virtue, their respectability and inoffensiveness. -Consequently it is not even the truly great writers -of Great Britain who are recommended the most -highly, but those middle-class literary idols who -teach moral lessons and whose purpose it is to -uplift mankind. The Presbyterian complex, so -evident throughout the Encyclopædia’s critiques, -finds in literature a fertile field for operation.</p> - -<p>Because of the limitations of space, I shall confine -myself in this chapter to modern literature. -I have, however, inspected the manner in which -the older literature is set forth in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>; and there, as elsewhere, is discernible -the same provincialism, the same theological -point of view, the same flamboyant exaggeration -of English writers, the same neglect of -foreign genius. As a reference book the <cite>Britannica</cite> -is chauvinistic, distorted, inadequate, disproportioned,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span> -and woefully behind the times. Despite -the fact that the Eleventh Edition is supposed -to have been brought up to date, few recent -writers are included, and those few are largely -second-rate writers of Great Britain.</p> - -<p>Let us first regard the gross discrepancies in -space between the biographies of English authors -and those of the authors of other nations. To -begin with, the number of biographies of English -writers is nearly as many as is given all the writers -of France and Germany combined. Sir -Walter Scott is given no less than thirteen columns, -whereas Balzac has only seven columns, -Victor Hugo only a little over four columns, and -Turgueniev only a little over one column. Samuel -Richardson is given nearly four columns, -whereas Flaubert has only two columns, Dostoievsky -less than two columns, and Daudet only -a column and a third! Mrs. Oliphant is given -over a column, more space than is allotted to Anatole -France, Coppée, or the Goncourts. George -Meredith is given six columns, more space than is -accorded Flaubert, de Maupassant and Zola put -together! Bulwer-Lytton has two columns, more -space than is given Dostoievsky. Dickens is -given two and a half times as much space as Victor -Hugo; and George Eliot, Trollope, and Stevenson -each has considerably more space than de<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span> -Maupassant, and nearly twice as much space as -Flaubert. Anthony Hope has almost an equal -amount of space with Turgueniev, nearly twice -as much as Gorky, and more than William Dean -Howells. Kipling, Barrie, Mrs. Gaskell, Mrs. -Humphry Ward, and Felicia Hemans are each -accorded more space than either Zola or Mark -Twain.... Many more similar examples of injustice -could be given, but enough have been set -down to indicate the manner in which British -authors are accorded an importance far beyond -their deserts.</p> - -<p>Of Jane Austen, to whom is given more space -than to either Daudet or Turgueniev, we read -that “it is generally agreed by the best critics that -Miss Austen has never been approached in her -own domain.” What, one wonders, of Balzac’s -stories of provincial life? Did he, after all, not -even approach Miss Austen? Mrs. Gaskell’s -<cite>Cranford</cite> “is unanimously accepted as a classic”; -and she is given an equal amount of space with -Dostoievsky and Flaubert!</p> - -<p>George Eliot’s biography draws three and a -half columns, twice as much space as Stendhal’s, -and half again as much as de Maupassant’s. In -it we encounter the following astonishing specimen -of criticism: No right estimate of her as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span> -an artist or a philosopher “can be formed without -a steady recollection of her infinite capacity for -mental suffering, and her need of human support.” -Just what these conditions have to do -with an æsthetic or philosophic judgment of her -is not made clear; but the critic finally brings himself -to add that “one has only to compare <cite>Romola</cite> -or <cite>Daniel Deronda</cite> with the compositions of any -author except herself to realize the greatness of -her designs and the astonishing gifts brought to -their final accomplishment.”</p> - -<p>The evangelical <i lang="fr">motif</i> enters more strongly in -the biography of George Macdonald, who draws -about equal space with Gorky, Huysmans, and -Barrès. Here we learn that Macdonald’s “moral -enthusiasm exercised great influence upon thoughtful -minds.” Ainsworth, the author of those -shoddy historical melodramas, <cite>Jack Sheppard</cite> and -<cite>Guy Fawkes</cite>, is also given a biography equal in -length to that of Gorky, Huysmans, and Barrès; -and we are told that he wrote tales which, despite -all their shortcomings, were “invariably instructive, -clean and manly.” Mrs. Ewing, too, -profited by her pious proclivities, for her biography -takes up almost as much space as that of the -“moral” Macdonald and the “manly” Ainsworth. -Her stories are “sound and wholesome in matter,”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span> -and besides, her best tales “have never been -surpassed in the style of literature to which they -belong.”</p> - -<p>Respectability and moral refinement were -qualities also possessed by G. P. R. James, whose -biography is equal in length to that of William -Dean Howells. In it there is quite a long comparison -of James with Dumas, though it is -frankly admitted that as an artist James was inferior. -His plots were poor, his descriptions were -weak, and his dialogue was bad. Therefore “his -very best books fall far below <cite>Les Trois Mousquetaires</cite>.” -But, it is added, “James never resorted -to illegitimate methods to attract readers, -and deserves such credit as may be due to a purveyor -of amusement who never caters to the less -creditable tastes of his guests.” In other words, -say what you will about James’s technique, he -was, at any rate, an upright and impeccable -gentleman!</p> - -<p>Even Mrs. Sarah Norton’s lofty moral nature -is rewarded with biographical space greater than -that of Huysmans or Gorky. Mrs. Norton, we -learn, “was not a mere writer of elegant trifles, -but was one of the priestesses of the ‘reforming’ -spirit.” One of her books was “a most eloquent -and rousing condemnation of child labor”; and -her poems were “written with charming tenderness<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span> -and grace.” Great, indeed, are the rewards -of virtue, if not in life, at least in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, several English authors are -condemned for their lack of nicety and respectability. -Trollope, for instance, lacked that elegance -and delicacy of sentiment so dear to the Encyclopædia -editor’s heart. “He is,” we read, -“sometimes absolutely vulgar—that is to say, he -does not deal with low life, but shows, though -always robust and pure in morality, a certain -coarseness of taste.”</p> - -<p>Turning from the vulgar but pure Trollope to -Charles Reade, we find more of this same kind of -criticism: “His view of human life, especially -of the life of women, is almost brutal ... and -he cannot, with all his skill as a story-teller, be -numbered among the great artists who warm the -heart and help to improve the conduct.” (Here -we have the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> true attitude toward -literature. That art, in order to be great, must -warm the heart, improve the conduct, and show -one the way to righteousness.) Nor is Ouida to -be numbered among the great uplifters. In her -derogatory half-column biography we are informed -that “on grounds of morality of taste -Ouida’s novels may be condemned” as they are -“frequently unwholesome.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span></p> - -<p>Two typical examples of the manner in which -truly great English writers, representative of the -best English culture, are neglected in favor of -those writers who epitomize England’s provincial -piety, are to be found in the biographies of George -Moore and Joseph Conrad, neither of whom is -concerned with improving the readers’ conduct or -even with warming their hearts. These two novelists, -the greatest modern authors which England -has produced, are dismissed peremptorily. Conrad’s -biography draws but eighteen lines, about -one-third of the space given to Marie Corelli; and -the only praise accorded him is for his vigorous -style and brilliant descriptions. In this superficial -criticism we have an example of ineptitude, -if not of downright stupidity, rarely equaled even -by newspaper reviewers. Not half of Conrad’s -books are mentioned, the last one to be recorded -being dated 1906, nearly eleven years ago! Yet -this is the Encyclopædia which is supposed to have -been brought up to date and to be adequate for -purposes of reference!</p> - -<p>In the case of George Moore there is less excuse -for such gross injustice (save that he is Irish), -for Moore has long been recognized as one of the -great moderns. Yet his biography draws less -space than that of Jane Porter, Gilbert Parker, -Maurice Hewlett, Rider Haggard, or H. G.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span> -Wells; half of the space given to Anthony Hope; -and only a fourth of the space given to Mrs. Gaskell -and to Mrs. Humphry Ward! <cite>A Mummer’s -Wife</cite>, we learn, has “decidedly repulsive -elements”; and the entire criticism of <cite>Esther -Waters</cite>, admittedly one of the greatest of modern -English novels, is that it is “a strong story with -an anti-gambling motive.” It would seem almost -incredible that even the tin-pot evangelism of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> would be stretched to -such a length,—but there you have the criticism -of <cite>Esther Waters</cite> set down word for word. The -impelling art of this novel means nothing to the -Encyclopedia’s critic; he cannot see the book’s -significance; nor does he recognize its admitted -importance to modern literature. To him it is -an anti-gambling tract! And because, perhaps, -he can find no uplift theme in <cite>A Mummer’s Wife</cite>, -that book is repulsive to him. Such is the culture -America is being fed on—at a price.</p> - -<p>Thomas Hardy, another one of England’s important -moderns, is condemned for his attitude -toward women: his is a “man’s point of view” -and “more French than English.” (We wonder -if this accounts for the fact that the sentimental -James M. Barrie is accorded more space and -greater praise.) Samuel Butler is another intellectual -English writer who has apparently been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span> -sacrificed on the altar of Presbyterian respectability. -He is given less than a column, a little more -than half the space given the patriotic, tub-thumping -Kipling, and less than half the space -given Felicia Hemans. Nor is there any criticism -of his work. <cite>The Way of all Flesh</cite> is merely -mentioned in the list of his books. Gissing, another -highly enlightened English writer, is accorded -less space than Jane Porter, only about -half the space given Anthony Hope, and less -space than is drawn by Marie Corelli! There is -almost no criticism of his work—a mere record of -facts.</p> - -<p>Mrs. M. E. Braddon, however, author of <cite>The -Trail of the Serpent</cite> and <cite>Lady Audley’s Secret</cite>, -is criticised in flattering terms. The biography -speaks of her “large and appreciative public,” and -apology is made for her by the statement that her -works give “the great body of readers of fiction -exactly what they require.” But why an apology -is necessary one is unable to say since <cite>Aurora -Floyd</cite> is “a novel with a strong affinity to <cite>Madame -Bovary</cite>.” Mrs. Braddon and Flaubert! -Truly a staggering alliance!</p> - -<p>Mrs. Henry Wood, the author of <cite>East Lynne</cite>, -is given more space than Conrad; and her <cite>Johnny -Ludlow</cite> tales are “the most artistic” of her works. -But the “artistic” Mrs. Wood has no preference<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span> -over Julia Kavanagh. This latter lady, we discover, -draws equal space with Marcel Prévost; -and she “handles her French themes with fidelity -and skill.” Judging from this praise and the -fact that Prévost gets no praise but is accused of -having written an “exaggerated” and “revolting” -book, we can only conclude that the English -authoress handles her French themes better than -does Prévost.</p> - -<p>George Meredith is accorded almost as much -biographical space as Balzac; and in the article -there appears such qualifying words as “seer,” -“greatness,” and “master.” The impression -given is that he was greater than Balzac. In -Jane Porter’s biography, which is longer than -that of Huysmans, we read of her “picturesque -power of narration.” Even of Samuel Warren, -to whom three-fourths of a column is allotted -(more space than is given to Bret Harte, Lafcadio -Hearn, or Gorky), it is said that the interest in -<cite>Ten Thousand a Year</cite> “is made to run with a -powerful current.”</p> - -<p>Power also is discovered in the works of Lucas -Malet. <cite>The Wages of Sin</cite> was “a powerful -story” which “attracted great attention”; and her -next book “had an even greater success.” Joseph -Henry Shorthouse, who is given more space than -Frank Norris and Stephen Crane combined, possessed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span> -“high earnestness of purpose, a luxuriant -style and a genuinely spiritual quality.” Though -lacking dramatic facility and a workmanlike conduct -of narrative, “he had almost every other -quality of the born novelist.” After this remark -it is obviously necessary to revise our æsthetic -judgment in regard to the religious author of <cite>John -Inglesant</cite>.</p> - -<p>Grant Allen, alas! lacked the benevolent qualities -of the “spiritual” Mr. Shorthouse, and—as -a result, no doubt—he is given less space, and his -work and vogue are spoken of disparagingly. -One of his books was a <i lang="fr">succès de scandale</i> “on account -of its treatment of the sexual problem.” -Mr. Allen apparently neither “warmed the heart” -nor “improved the conduct” of his audience. On -the other hand, Mrs. Oliphant, in a long biography, -is praised for her “sympathetic touch”; -and we learn furthermore that she was long and -“honorably” connected with the firm of Blackwood. -Maurice Hewlett has nearly a half-column -biography full of praise. Conan Doyle, -also, is spoken of highly. Kipling’s biography, -longer than Mark Twain’s, Bourget’s, Daudet’s, -or Gogol’s, also contains praise. In H. G. Wells’s -biography, which is longer than that of George -Moore, “his very high place” as a novelist is -spoken of; and Anthony Hope draws abundant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span> -praise in a biography almost as long as that of -Turgueniev!</p> - -<p>In the treatment of Mrs. Humphry Ward, -however, we have the key to the literary attitude -of the Encyclopædia. Here is an author who -epitomizes that middle-class respectability which -forms the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors’ standard of artistic -judgment, and who represents that virtuous suburban -culture which colors the Encyclopædia’s -art departments. It is not surprising therefore -that, of all recent novelists, she should be given -the place of honor. Her biography extends to -a column and two-thirds, much longer than the -biography of Turgueniev, Zola, Daudet, Mark -Twain, or Henry James; and over twice the -length of William Dean Howells’s biography. -Even more space is devoted to her than is given -to the biography of Poe!</p> - -<p>Nor in this disproportionate amount of space -alone is Mrs. Ward’s superiority indicated. The -article contains the most fulsome praise, and we -are told that her “eminence among latter-day -women novelists arises from her high conception -of the art of fiction and her strong grasp on intellectual -and social problems, her descriptive power -... and her command of a broad and vigorous -prose style.” (The same enthusiastic gentleman -who wrote Mrs. Ward’s biography also wrote the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span> -biography of Oscar Wilde. The latter is given -much less space, and the article on him is a petty, -contemptible attack written from the standpoint -of a self-conscious puritan.)</p> - -<p>Thackeray is given equal space with Balzac, -and in the course of his biography it is said that -some have wanted to compare him with Dickens -but that such a comparison would be unprofitable. -“It is better to recognize simply that the two -novelists stood, each in his own way, distinctly -above even their most distinguished contemporaries.” -(Both Balzac and Victor Hugo were -their contemporaries, and to say that Thackeray -stood “distinctly above” them is to butcher French -genius to make an English holiday.)</p> - -<p>In Dickens’s biography, which is nearly half -again as long as that of Balzac and nearly two -and a half times as long as that of Hugo, we encounter -such words and phrases as “masterpieces” -and “wonderful books.” No books of his surpassed -the early chapters of <cite>Great Expectations</cite> in -“perfection of technique or in the mastery of all -the resources of the novelist’s art.” Here, as in -many other places, patriotic license has obviously -been permitted to run wild. Where, outside of -provincial England, will you find another critic, -no matter how appreciative of Dickens’s talent, -who will agree that he possessed “perfection of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span> -technique” and a “mastery of all the resources of -the novelist’s art”? But, as if this perfervid -rhetoric were not sufficiently extreme, Swinburne -is quoted as saying that to have created Abel -Magwitch alone is to be a god indeed among the -creators of deathless men. (This means that -Dickens was a god beside the mere mundane creator -of Lucien de Rubempré, Goriot, and Eugénie -Grandet.) And, again, on top of this unreasoned -enthusiasm, it is added that in “intensity and -range of creative genius he can hardly be said to -have any modern rival.”</p> - -<p>Let us turn to Balzac who was not, according -to this encyclopædia, even Dickens’s rival in intensity -and range of creative genius. Here we -find derogatory criticism which indeed bears out -the contention of Dickens’s biographer that the -author of <cite>David Copperfield</cite> was superior to the -author of <cite>Lost Illusions</cite>. Balzac, we read, “is -never quite real.” His style “lacks force and -adequacy to his own purpose.” And then we are -given this final bit of insular criticism: “It is -idle to claim for Balzac an absolute supremacy -in the novel, while it may be questioned whether -any single book of his, or any scene of a book, or -even any single character or situation, is among -the very greatest books, scenes, characters, situations -in literature.” Alas, poor Balzac!—the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span> -inferior of both Dickens and Thackeray—the -writer who, if the judgment of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> is to be accepted, created no book, -scene, character or situation which is among the -greatest! Thus are the world’s true geniuses disparaged -for the benefit of moral English culture.</p> - -<p>De Vigny receives adverse criticism. He is -compared unfavorably to Sir Walter Scott, and is -attacked for his “pessimistic” philosophy. De -Musset “had genius, though not genius of that -strongest kind which its possessor can always keep -in check”—after the elegant and repressed manner -of English writers, no doubt. De Musset’s -own character worked “against his success as a -writer,” and his break with George Sand “brought -out the weakest side of his moral character.” -(Again the church-bell <i lang="fr">motif</i>.) Gautier, that -sensuous and un-English Frenchman, wrote a book -called <cite>Mademoiselle de Maupin</cite> which was “unfitted -by its subject, and in parts by its treatment, -for general perusal.”</p> - -<p>Dumas <i lang="fr">père</i> is praised, largely we infer, because -his work was sanctioned by Englishmen: -“The three musketeers are as famous in England -as in France. Thackeray could read about Athos -from sunrise to sunset with the utmost contentment -of mind, and Robert Louis Stevenson and -Andrew Lang have paid tribute to the band.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span> -Pierre Loti, however, in a short biography, hardly -meets with British approval. “Many of his best -books are long sobs of remorseful memory, so personal, -so intimate, that an English reader is -amazed to find such depth of feeling compatible -with the power of minutely and publicly recording -what is felt.” Loti, like de Musset, lacked -that prudish restraint which is so admirable a virtue -in English writers. Daudet, in a short and -very inadequate biography, is written down as an -imitator of Dickens; and in Anatole France’s -biography, which is shorter than Marryat’s or -Mrs. Oliphant’s, no adequate indication of his -genius is given.</p> - -<p>Zola is treated with greater unfairness than perhaps -any other French author. Zola has always -been disliked in England, and his English publisher -was jailed by the guardians of British -morals. But it is somewhat astonishing to find to -what lengths this insular prejudice has gone in -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. Zola’s biography, -which is shorter than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s, is -written by a former Accountant General of the -English army, and contains adverse comment because -he did not idealize “the nobler elements in -human nature,” although, it is said, “his later -books show improvement.” Such scant treatment -of Zola reveals the unfairness of extreme<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span> -prejudice, for no matter what the nationality, religion, -or taste of the critic, he must, in all fairness, -admit that Zola is a more important and -influential figure in modern letters than Mrs. -Humphry Ward.</p> - -<p>In the biography of George Sand we learn that -“as a thinker, George Eliot is vastly [<i lang="la">sic</i>] superior; -her knowledge is more profound, and her -psychological analysis subtler and more scientific.” -Almost nothing is said of Constant’s writings; -and in the mere half-column sketch of Huysmans -there are only a few biographical facts with -a list of his books. Of Stendhal there is practically -no criticism; and Coppée “exhibits all the -defects of his qualities.” René Bazin draws only -seventeen lines—a bare record of facts; and -Édouard Rod is given a third of a column with no -criticism.</p> - -<p>Despite the praise given Victor Hugo, his -biography, from a critical standpoint, is practically -worthless. In it there is no sense of critical -proportion: it is a mere panegyric which definitely -states that Hugo was greater than Balzac. -This astonishing and incompetent praise is accounted -for when we discover that it was written -by Swinburne who, as is generally admitted, was -a better poet than critic. In fact, turning to -Swinburne’s biography, we find the following<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span> -valuation of Swinburne as critic: “The very -qualities which gave his poetry its unique charm -and character were antipathetic to his success as -a critic. He had very little capacity for cool and -reasoned judgment, and his criticism is often a -tangled thicket of prejudices and predilections.... -Not one of his studies is satisfactory as a -whole; the faculty for the sustained exercise of -the judgment was denied him, and even his best -appreciations are disfigured by error in taste and -proportion.”</p> - -<p>Here we have the Encyclopædia’s own condemnation -of some of its material—a personal -and frank confession of its own gross inadequacy -and bias! And Swinburne, let it be noted, contributes -no less than ten articles on some of the -most important literary men in history! If the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> was as naïf and honest -about revealing the incapacity of all of its critics -as it is in the case of Swinburne, there would be -no need for me to call attention to those other -tangled thickets of prejudices and predilections -which have enmeshed so many of the gentlemen -who write for it.</p> - -<p>But the inadequacy of the <cite>Britannica</cite> as a reference -book on modern French letters can best be -judged by the fact that there appears no biographical -mention whatever of Romain Rolland,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span> -Pierre de Coulevain, Tinayre, René Boylesve, -Jean and Jérôme Tharaud, Henry Bordeaux, or -Pierre Mille. Rolland is the most gifted and -conspicuous figure of the new school of writers in -France to-day, and the chief representative of a -new phase of French literature. Pierre de Coulevain -stands at the head of the women novelists -in modern France; and her books are widely -known in both England and America. Madame -Tinayre’s art, to quote an eminent English critic, -“reflects the dawn of the new French spirit.” -Boylesve stands for the classic revival in French -letters, and ranks in the forefront of contemporary -European writers. The Tharauds became -famous as novelists as far back as 1902, and hold -a high place among the writers of Young France. -Bordeaux’s novels have long been familiar in -translation even to American readers; and Pierre -Mille holds very much the same place in France -that Kipling does in England. Yet not only does -not one of these noteworthy authors have a -biography, but their names do not appear -throughout the entire Encyclopædia!</p> - -<p>In the article on <cite>French Literature</cite> the literary -renaissance of Young France is not mentioned. -There apparently has been no effort at making the -account modern or up-to-date in either its critical -or historical side; and if you desire information<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span> -on the recent activities in French letters—activities -of vital importance and including several of -the greatest names in contemporary literature—you -need not seek it in the <cite>Britannica</cite>, that “supreme” -book of knowledge; for apparently only -modern English achievement is judged worthy of -consideration.</p> - -<p>Modern Russian literature suffers even more -from neglect. Dostoievsky has less than two -columns, less space than Charles Reade, George -Borrow, Mrs. Gaskell, or Charles Kingsley. -Gogol has a column and a quarter, far less space -than that given Felicia Hemans, James M. Barrie, -of Mrs. Humphry Ward. Gorky is allotted little -over half a column, one-third of the space given -Kipling, and equal space with Ouida and Gilbert -Parker. Tolstoi, however, seems to have inflamed -the British imagination. His sentimental -philosophy, his socialistic godliness, his capacity -to “warm the heart” and “improve the conduct” -has resulted in a biography which runs to nearly -sixteen columns!</p> - -<p>The most inept and inadequate biography in -the whole Russian literature department, however, -is that of Turgueniev. Turgueniev, almost -universally conceded to be the greatest, and certainly -the most artistic, of the Russian writers, is -accorded little over a column, less space than is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span> -devoted to the biography of Thomas Love Peacock, -Kipling, or Thomas Hardy; and only a half -or a third of the space given to a dozen other inferior -English writers. And in this brief biography -we encounter the following valuation: -“Undoubtedly Turgueniev may be considered one -of the great novelists, worthy to be ranked with -Thackeray, Dickens and George Eliot; with the -genius of the last of these he has many affinities.” -It will amuse, rather than amaze, the students of -Slavonic literature to learn that Turgueniev was -the George Eliot of Russia.</p> - -<p>But those thousands of people who have -bought the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, believing it -to be an adequate literary reference work, should -perhaps be thankful that Turgueniev is mentioned -at all, for many other important modern Russians -are without biographies. For instance, there is -no biographical mention of Andreiev, Garshin, -Kuprin, Tchernyshevsky, Grigorovich, Artzybasheff, -Korolenko, Veressayeff, Nekrasoff, or Tchekhoff. -And yet the work of nearly all these Russian -writers had actually appeared in English -translation before the Eleventh Edition of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> went to press!</p> - -<p>Italian fiction also suffers from neglect at the -hands of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> critics. Giulio Barrili -receives only thirteen lines; Farina, only nine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span> -lines; and Giovanni Verga, only twelve. Fogazzaro -draws twenty-six lines; and in the biography -we learn that his “deeply religious spirit” animates -his literary productions, and that he contributed -to modern Italian literature “wholesome -elements of which it would otherwise be nearly -destitute.” He also was “Wordsworthian” in -his simplicity and pathos. Amicis and Serao -draw twenty-nine lines and half a column respectively; -but there are no biographies of Emilio -de Marchi, the prominent historical novelist; Enrico -Butti, one of the foremost representatives of -the psychological novel in modern Italy; and -Grazia Deledda.</p> - -<p>The neglect of modern German writers in the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> is more glaring than that -of any other European nation, not excluding Russia. -So little information can one get from this -encyclopædia concerning the really important -German authors that it would hardly repay one -to go to the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Eckstein—five of whose -novels were issued in English before 1890—is denied -a biography. So is Meinhold; so is Luise -Mühlbach; so is Wachenroder;—all well known -in England long before the <cite>Britannica</cite> went to -press. Even Gabriele Reuter, whose far-reaching -success came as long ago as 1895, is without -a biography. And—what is less excusable—Max<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span> -Kretzer, the first of Germany’s naturalistic -novelists, has no biographical mention in this -great English encyclopædia!</p> - -<p>But the omission of even these important -names do not represent the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> greatest -injustice to Germany’s literature; for one will -seek in vain for biographies of Wilhelm von -Polenz and Ompteda, two of the foremost German -novelists, whose work marked a distinct step -in the development of their nation’s letters. -Furthermore, Clara Viebig, Gustav Frenssen, and -Thomas Mann, who are among the truly great -figures in modern imaginative literature, are without -biographies. These writers have carried the -German novel to extraordinary heights. Mann’s -<cite>Buddenbrooks</cite> (1901) represents the culmination -of the naturalistic novel in Germany; and Viebig -and Frenssen are of scarcely less importance. -There are few modern English novelists as deserving -as these three Germans; and yet numerous -comparatively insignificant English writers are -given long critical biographies in the <cite>Britannica</cite> -while Viebig, Frenssen and Mann receive no -biographies whatever! Such unjust discrimination -against non-British authors would hardly be -compatible with even the narrowest scholarship.</p> - -<p>And there are other important and eminent -German novelists who are far more deserving of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span> -space in an international encyclopædia than many -of the Englishmen who receive biographies in the -<cite>Britannica</cite>—for instance, Heinz Tovote, Hermann -Hesse, Ricarda Huch, Helene Böhlau, and -Eduard von Keyserling—not one of whom is -given biographical consideration!</p> - -<p>When we come to the American literary division -of the <cite>Britannica</cite>, however, prejudice and -neglect reach their highest point. Never have I -seen a better example of the contemptuous attitude -of England toward American literature than -in the Encyclopædia’s treatment of the novelists -of the United States. William Dean Howells, in -a three-quarters-of-a-column biography, gets scant -praise and is criticised with not a little condescension. -F. Marion Crawford, in an even shorter -biography, receives only lukewarm and apologetic -praise. Frank Norris is accorded only twenty -lines, less space than is given the English hack, -G. A. Henty! <cite>McTeague</cite> is “a story of the San -Francisco slums”; and <cite>The Octopus</cite> and <cite>The Pit</cite> -are “powerful stories.” This is the extent of the -criticism. Stephen Crane is given twelve lines; -Bret Harte, half a column with little criticism; -Charles Brockden Brown and Lafcadio Hearn, -two-thirds of a column each; H. C. Bunner, twenty-one -lines; and Thomas Nelson Page less than -half a column.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span></p> - -<p>What there is in Mark Twain’s biography is -written by Brander Matthews and is fair as far as -it goes. The one recent American novelist who -is given adequate praise is Henry James; and this -may be accounted for by the fact of James’s -adoption of England as his home. The only -other adequate biography of an American author -is that of Nathaniel Hawthorne. But the few -biographies of other United States writers who -are included in the Encyclopædia are very brief -and insufficient.</p> - -<p>In the omissions of American writers, British -prejudice has overstepped all bounds of common -justice. In the following list of names <em>only one</em> -(Churchill’s) <em>is even mentioned in the entire Encyclopædia</em>: -Edith Wharton, David Graham -Phillips, Gertrude Atherton, Winston Churchill, -Owen Wister, Ambrose Bierce, Theodore Dreiser, -Margaret Deland, Jack London, Robert Grant, -Ellen Glasgow, Booth Tarkington, Alice Brown -and Robert Herrick. And yet there is abundant -space in the <cite>Britannica</cite>, not only for critical mention, -but for <em>detailed biographies</em>, of such English -writers as Hall Caine, Rider Haggard, Maurice -Hewlett, Stanley Weyman, Flora Annie Steel, -Edna Lyall, Elizabeth Charles, Annie Keary, -Eliza Linton, Mrs. Henry Wood, Pett Ridge, W.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span> -C. Russell, and still others of less consequence than -many of the American authors omitted.</p> - -<p>If the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> was a work -whose sale was confined to England, there could -be little complaint of the neglect of the writers of -other nationalities. But unjust pandering to British -prejudice and a narrow contempt for American -culture scarcely become an encyclopædia -whose chief profits are derived from the United -States. So inadequate is the treatment of American -fiction that almost any modern text-book on -our literature is of more value; for, as I have -shown, all manner of inferior and little-known -English authors are given eulogistic biographies, -while many of the foremost American authors receive -no mention whatever.</p> - -<p>As a reference book on modern fiction, the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> is hopelessly inadequate -and behind the times, filled with long eulogies of -<i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> English authors, lacking all sense of -proportion, containing many glaring omissions, -and compiled and written in a spirit of insular -prejudice. And this is the kind of culture that -America is exhorted, not merely to accept, but to -pay a large price for.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_III">III<br /> -<span class="smaller">THE DRAMA</span></h2> - -<p>Particular importance attaches to the manner -in which the modern drama is treated in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, for to-day there exists a -deep and intimate interest in this branch of literature—an -interest which is greater and more far-reaching -than during any other period of modern -times. Especially is this true in the United -States. During the past fifteen years study in -the history, art and technique of the stage has -spread into almost every quarter of the country. -The printed play has come back into favor; and -there is scarcely a publisher of any note on whose -lists do not appear many works of dramatic literature. -Dramatic and stage societies have been -formed everywhere, and there is an increasing demand -for productions of the better-class plays. -Perhaps no other one branch of letters holds so -conspicuous a place in our culture.</p> - -<p>The drama itself during the last quarter of a -century has taken enormous strides. After a -period of stagnant mediocrity, a new vitality has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span> -been fused into this art. In Germany, France, -England, and Russia many significant dramatists -have sprung into existence. The literature -of the stage has taken a new lease on life, and in -its ranks are numbered many of the finest creative -minds of our day. Furthermore, a school of capable -and serious critics has developed to meet the -demands of the new work; and already there is -a large and increasing library of books dealing -with the subject from almost every angle.</p> - -<p>Therefore, because of this renaissance and the -widespread interest attaching to it, we should expect -to find in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>—that -“supreme book of knowledge,” that “complete -library” of information—a full and comprehensive -treatment of the modern drama. The -claims made in the advertising of the <cite>Britannica</cite> -would lead one immediately to assume that so -important and universally absorbing a subject -would be set forth adequately. The drama has -played, and will continue to play, a large part in -our modern intellectual life; and, in an educational -work of the alleged scope and completeness -of this encyclopædia, it should be accorded careful -and liberal consideration.</p> - -<p>But in this department, as in others equally important, -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> fails inexcusably. -I have carefully inspected its dramatic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span> -information, and its inadequacy left me with a -feeling which fell little short of amazement. Not -only is the modern drama given scant consideration, -but those comparatively few articles which -deal with it are so inept and desultory that no correct -idea of the development of modern dramatic -literature can be obtained. As in the Encyclopædia’s -other departments of modern æsthetic culture, -the work of Great Britain is accorded an -abnormally large amount of space, while the work -of other nations is—if mentioned at all—dismissed -with comparatively few words. The British -drama, like the British novel, is exaggerated, -both through implication and direct statement, -out of all proportion to its inherent significance. -Many of the truly great and important dramatists -of foreign countries are omitted entirely in order -to make way for minor and inconsequent Englishmen; -and the few towering figures from abroad -who are given space draw only a few lines of -biographical mention, whereas second-rate British -writers are accorded long and minutely specific -articles.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, the Encyclopædia reveals the fact -that in a great many instances it has not been -brought up to date. As a result, even when an -alien dramatist has found his way into the exclusive -British circle whose activities dominate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span> -the æsthetic departments of the <cite>Britannica</cite>, one -does not have a complete record of his work. This -failure to revise adequately old material and to -make the information as recent as the physical exigencies -of book-making would permit, results no -doubt in the fact that even the more recent and -important English dramatists have suffered the -fate of omission along with their less favored confrères -from other countries. Consequently, the -dramatic material is not only biased but is inadequate -from the British standpoint as well.</p> - -<p>As a reference book on the modern drama, either -for students or the casual reader, the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> is practically worthless. Its information -is old and prejudiced, besides being -flagrantly incomplete. I could name a dozen -books on the modern drama which do not pretend -to possess the comprehensiveness and authenticity -claimed by the <cite>Britannica</cite>, and yet are far more -adequate, both in extent and modernity of subject-matter, -and of vastly superior educational -value. The limited information which has actually -found its way into this encyclopædia is marked -by incompetency, prejudice, and carelessness; and -its large number of indefensible omissions renders -it almost useless as a reference work on modern -dramatic literature.</p> - -<p>In the general article on the <cite>Drama</cite> we have<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span> -a key to the entire treatment of the subject -throughout the Encyclopædia’s twenty-seven volumes. -The English drama is given forty-one columns. -The French drama is given fifteen columns; -the German drama, nine; the Scandinavian -drama one; and the Russian drama, one-third of -a column! The American drama is not even given -a separate division but is included under the English -drama, and occupies less than one column! -The Irish drama also is without a separate division, -and receives only twelve lines of exposition! In -the division on the Scandinavian drama, Strindberg’s -name is not mentioned; and the reader is -supplied with the antiquated, early-Victorian information -that Ibsen’s <cite>Ghosts</cite> is “repellent.” In -the brief passage on the Russian drama almost -no idea is given of its subject; in fact, no dramatist -born later than 1808 is mentioned! When -we consider the wealth of the modern Russian -drama and its influence on the theater of other -nations, even of England, we can only marvel at -such utter inadequacy and neglect.</p> - -<p>In the sub-headings of “recent” drama under -<cite>Drama</cite>, “Recent English Drama” is given over -twelve columns, while “Recent French Drama” is -given but a little over three. There is no sub-division -for recent German drama, but mention is -made of it in a short paragraph under “English<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span> -Drama” with the heading: “Influences of Foreign -Drama!”</p> - -<p>Regard this distribution of space for a moment. -The obvious implication is that the more modern -English drama is four times as important as the -French; and yet for years the entire inspiration of -the English stage came from France, and certain -English “dramatists” made their reputations by -adapting French plays. And what of the more -modern German drama? It is of importance, evidently, -only as it had an influence on the English -drama. Could self-complacent insularity go further? -Even in its capacity as a mere contribution -to British genius, the recent German drama, -it seems, is of little moment; and Sudermann -counts for naught. In the entire article on <cite>Drama</cite> -his name is not so much as mentioned! Such is -the transcendent and superlative culture of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>!</p> - -<p>Turning to the biographies, we find that British -dramatists, when mentioned at all, are treated -with cordial liberality. T. W. Robertson is given -nearly three-fourths of a column with the comment -that “his work is notable for its masterly -stage-craft, wholesome and generous humor, bright -and unstrained dialogue, and high dramatic sense -of human character in its theatrical aspects.” H. -J. Byron is given over half a column. W. S.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span> -Gilbert draws no less than a column and three-fourths. -G. R. Sims gets twenty-two lines. -Sydney Grundy is accorded half a column. James -M. Barrie is given a column and a half, and -George Bernard Shaw an equal amount of space. -Pinero is given two-thirds of a column; and -Henry Arthur Jones half a column. Jones, however, -might have had more space had the Encyclopædia’s -editor gone to the simple trouble of extending -that playwright’s biography beyond -1904; but on this date it ends, with the result -that there appears no mention of <cite>The Heroic -Stubbs</cite>, <cite>The Hypocrites</cite>, <cite>The Evangelist</cite>, <cite>Dolly -Reforms Himself</cite>, or <cite>The Knife</cite>—all of which -were produced before this supreme, up-to-date -and informative encyclopædia went to press.</p> - -<p>Oscar Wilde, a man who revolutionized the -English drama and who was unquestionably one -of the important figures in modern English letters, -is given a little over a column, less space than -Shaw, Barrie, or Gilbert. In much of his writing -there was, we learn, “an undertone of rather nasty -suggestion”; and after leaving prison “he was -necessarily an outcast from decent circles.” -Also, “it is still impossible to take a purely objective -view of Oscar Wilde’s work,”—that is to say, -literary judgment cannot be passed without recourse -to morality!</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here is an actual confession <em>by the editor himself</em> -(for he contributed the article on Wilde) of -the accusation I have made against the <cite>Britannica</cite>. -A great artist, according to this encyclopædia’s -criterion, is a respectable artist, one who preaches -and practises an inoffensive suburbanism. But -when the day comes—if it ever does—when the -editor of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, along with -other less prudish and less delicate critics, can regard -Wilde’s work apart from personal prejudice, -perhaps Wilde will be given the consideration he -deserves—a consideration far greater, we hope, -than that accorded Barrie and Gilbert.</p> - -<p>Greater inadequacy than that revealed in -Wilde’s biography is to be found in the fact that -Synge has no biography whatever in the <cite>Britannica</cite>! -Nor has Hankin. Nor Granville Barker. -Nor Lady Gregory. Nor Galsworthy. The biographical -omission of such important names as -these can hardly be due to the editor’s opinion -that they are not deserving of mention, for lesser -English dramatic names of the preceding generation -are given liberal space. The fact that these -writers do not appear can be attributed only to the -fact that the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> has not been -properly brought up to date—a fact substantiated -by an abundance of evidence throughout the entire -work. Of what possible value to one interested<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span> -in the modern drama is a reference library which -contains no biographical mention of such significant -figures as these?</p> - -<p>The French drama suffers even more from incompleteness -and scantiness of material. Becque -draws just eleven lines, exactly half the space -given to the British playwright whose reputation -largely depends on that piece of sentimental claptrap, -<cite>Lights o’ London</cite>. Hervieu draws half a -column of biography, in which his two important -dramas, <cite>Modestie</cite> and <cite>Connais-Toi</cite> (both out before -the <cite>Britannica</cite> went to press), are not mentioned. -Curel is given sixteen lines; Lavedan, -fourteen lines, in which not all of even his best -work is noted; Maurice Donnay, twenty lines, -with no mention of <cite>La Patronne</cite> (1908); Lemaître, -a third of a column; Rostand, half a column, -less space than is accorded the cheap, slap-stick -humorist from Manchester, H. J. Byron; Capus, -a third of a column; Porto-Riche, thirteen lines; -and Brieux twenty-six lines. In Brieux’s very -brief biography there is no record of <cite>La Française</cite> -(1807), <cite>Simone</cite> (1908), or <cite>Suzette</cite> (1909). -Henri Bernstein does not have even a biographical -mention.</p> - -<p>Maeterlinck’s biography runs only to a column -and a third, and the last work of his to be mentioned -is dated 1903, since which time the article<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span> -has apparently not been revised! Therefore, if -you depend for information on this biography in -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, you will find no -record of <cite>Sœur Béatrice</cite>, <cite>Ariane et Barbe-Bleu</cite>, -<cite>L’Oiseau Bleu</cite>, or <cite>Maria Magdaléne</cite>.</p> - -<p>The modern Italian drama also receives very -brief and inadequate treatment. Of the modern -Italian dramatists only two of importance have -biographies—Pietro Cossa and Paolo Ferrari. -Cossa is given twenty-four lines, and Ferrari only -seven lines! The two eminent comedy writers, -Gherardi del Testa and Ferdinando Martini, have -no biographies. Nor has either Giuseppe Giacosa -or Gerolamo Rovetta, the leaders of the new -school, any biographical mention. And in d’Annunzio’s -biography only seventeen lines are devoted -to his dramas. What sort of an idea of -the modern Italian drama can one get from an -encyclopædia which contains such indefensible -omissions and such scant accounts of prominent -writers? And why should the writer who is as -commonly known by the name of Stecchetti as -Samuel Clemens is by the name of Mark Twain -be listed under “Guerrini” without even a cross -reference under the only name by which the majority -of readers know him? Joseph Conrad -might almost as well be listed under “Korzeniowski.” -There are few enough non-British writers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span> -included in the <cite>Britannica</cite> without deliberately or -ignorantly hiding those who have been lucky -enough to be admitted.</p> - -<p>Crossing over into Germany and Austria one -may look in vain for any indication of the wealth -of dramatic material and the great number of important -dramatic figures which have come from -these two countries. Of all the recent German -and Austrian dramatists of note, <em>only two</em> are so -much as given biographical mention, and these -two—Sudermann and Hauptmann—are treated -with a brevity and inadequacy which, to my -knowledge, are without a parallel in any modern -reference work on the subject. Hauptmann and -Sudermann receive just twenty-five lines each, -less space than is given to Sydney Grundy, Pinero, -Henry Arthur Jones, T. W. Robertson, H. J. -Byron; and less than a third of the space given -to Shaw and W. S. Gilbert! Even Sims is given -nearly as much space!</p> - -<p>In these comparisons alone is discernible a -chauvinism of almost incredible narrowness. -But the biographies themselves emphasize this -patriotic prejudice even more than does the brevity -of space. In Sudermann’s biography, which -apparently ends in 1905, no mention whatever is -made of such important works as <cite>Das Blumenboot</cite>, -<cite>Rosen</cite>, <cite>Strandkinder</cite>, and <cite>Das Hohe Lied</cite><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span> -(<cite>The Song of Songs</cite>), all of which appeared before -the <cite>Britannica</cite> was printed.</p> - -<p>And what of Hauptmann, perhaps the greatest -and most important figure in dramatic literature -of this and the last generation? After a brief -record of the facts in Hauptmann’s life we read: -“Of Hauptmann’s subsequent work mention may -be made of”—and then the names of a few of his -plays are set down. In the phrase, “mention may -be made of,” is summed up the critic’s narrow -viewpoint. And in that list it was thought unnecessary -to mention <cite>Schluck und Jau</cite>, <cite>Michael -Kramer</cite>, <cite>Der Arme Heinrich</cite>, <cite>Elga</cite>, <cite>Die Jungfern -vom Bischofsberg</cite>, <cite>Kaiser Karls Geisel</cite>, and <cite>Griselda</cite>! -Since all of these appeared in ample time -to be included, it would, I believe, have occurred -to an unprejudiced critic that mention <em>might</em> have -been made of them. In fact, all the circumstantial -evidence points to the supposition that had -Hauptmann been an Englishman, not only would -they have been mentioned, but they would have -been praised as well. As it is, there is no criticism -of Hauptmann’s work and no indication of his -greatness, despite the fact that he is almost universally -conceded to be a more important figure -than any of the modern English playwrights who -are given greater space and favorably criticised.</p> - -<p>With such insufficient and glaringly prejudiced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span> -treatment of giants like Sudermann and Hauptmann, -it is not at all surprising that not one other -figure in German and Austrian recent dramatic -literature should have a biography. For instance, -there is no biography of Schnitzler, Arno -Holz, Max Halbe, Ludwig Fulda, O. E. Hartleben, -Max Dreyer, Ernst Hardt, Hirschfeld, Ernst -Rosmer, Karl Schönherr, Hermann Bahr, Thoma, -Beer-Hoffmann, Johannes Schlaf, or Wedekind! -Although every one of these names should be included -in some informative manner in an encyclopædia -as large as the <cite>Britannica</cite>, and one which -makes so lavish a claim for its educational completeness, -the omission of several of them may be -excused on the grounds that, in the haste of the -Encyclopædia’s editors to commercialize their cultural -wares, they did not have sufficient time to -take cognizance of the more recent of these dramatists. -Since the editors have overlooked men -like Galsworthy from their own country, we can -at least acquit them of the charge of snobbish -patriotism in several of the present instances of -wanton oversight.</p> - -<p>In the cases of Schnitzler, Hartleben and -Wedekind, however, no excuse can be offered. -The work of these men, though recent, had gained -for itself so important a place in the modern -world before the <cite>Britannica</cite> went to press, that to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span> -ignore them biographically was an act of either -wanton carelessness or extreme ignorance. The -former would appear to furnish the explanation, -for under <cite>Drama</cite> there is evidence that the editors -knew of Schnitzler’s and Wedekind’s existence. -But, since the <cite>Überbrettl</cite> movement is given only -seven lines, it would, under the circumstances, -hardly be worth one’s while to consult the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> for information on the modern -drama in Germany and Austria.</p> - -<p>Even so, one would learn more of the drama in -those countries than one could possibly learn of -the drama of the United States. To be sure, no -great significance attaches to our stage literature, -but since this encyclopædia is being foisted upon -us and we are asked to buy it in preference to all -others, it would have been well within the province -of its editors to give the hundred of thousands -of American readers a little enlightenment -concerning their own drama.</p> - -<p>The English, of course, have no interest in our -institutions—save only our banks—and consistently -refuse to attribute either competency or importance -to our writers. They would prefer that -we accept <em>their</em> provincial and mediocre culture -and ignore entirely our own æsthetic struggles -toward an individual expression. But all Americans -do not find intellectual contentment in this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span> -paternal and protecting British attitude; and -those who are interested in our native drama and -who have paid money for the <cite>Britannica</cite> on the -strength of its exorbitant and unsustainable -claims, have just cause for complaint in the scanty -and contemptuous way in which American letters -are treated.</p> - -<p>As I have already noted, the American drama is -embodied in the article on the <cite>English Drama</cite>, -and is given less space than a column. Under -<cite>American Literature</cite> there is nothing concerning -the American stage and its writers; nor is there -a single biography in the entire Encyclopædia of -an American dramatist! James A. Herne receives -eight lines—a note so meagre that for purposes -of reference it might almost as well have -been omitted entirely. And Augustin Daly, the -most conspicuous figure in our theatrical history, -is dismissed with twenty lines, about half the -space given H. J. Byron! If you desire any information -concerning the development of the -American theater, or wish to know any details -about David Belasco, Bronson Howard, Charles -Hoyt, Steele MacKaye, Augustus Thomas, Clyde -Fitch, or Charles Klein, you will have to go to a -source other than the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>By way of explaining this neglect of all American -culture I will quote from a recent advertisement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span> -of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. “We Americans,” it -says, in a most intimate and condescending manner, -“have had a deep sense of self-sufficiency. -We haven’t had time or inclination to know how -the rest of the world lived. But now we <em>must</em> -know.” And let it be said for the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> that it has done all in its power to discourage -us in this self-sufficiency.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_IV">IV<br /> -<span class="smaller">POETRY</span></h2> - -<p>In the field of poetry the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -comes nearer being a competent reference -library than in the field of painting, fiction, or -drama. This fact, however, is not due to a spirit -of fairness on the part of the Encyclopædia’s editors -so much as to the actual superiority of English -poetry. In this field England has led the -world. It is the one branch of culture in which -modern England stands highest. France surpasses -her in painting and in fiction, and Germany -in music and the drama. But Great Britain is -without a rival in poetry. Therefore, despite the -fact that the Encyclopædia is just as biased in -dealing with this subject as it is in dealing with -other cultural subjects, England’s pre-eminence -tends to reduce in this instance that insular prejudice -which distorts the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> treatment of -arts and letters.</p> - -<p>But even granting this superiority, the Encyclopædia -is neglectful of the poets of other -nations; and while it comes nearer the truth in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span> -setting forth the glories of English prosody, it -fails here as elsewhere in being an international -reference book of any marked value. There is -considerable and unnecessary exaggeration of the -merits of British poets, even of second- and third-rate -British poets. Evangelical criticism predominates, -and respectability is the measure of -merit. Furthermore, the true value of poetry in -France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United -States is minimized, and many writers of these -countries who unquestionably should have a place -in an encyclopædia as large as the <cite>Britannica</cite>, are -omitted. Especially is this true in the case of the -United States, which stands second only to Great -Britain in the quantity and quality of its modern -poetry.</p> - -<p>Let us first review briefly the complete and -eulogistic manner in which English poets are dealt -with. Then let us compare, while making all -allowances for alien inferiority, this treatment of -British poetry with the Encyclopædia’s treatment -of the poetry of other nations. To begin with, -I find but very few British poets of even minor -importance who are not given a biography more -than equal to their deserts. Coventry Patmore -receives a biography of a column and a half. -Sydney Dobell’s runs to nearly a column. Wilfred -Scawen Blunt is accorded half a column;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span> -John Davidson, over a column of high praise; -Henley, more than an entire page; Stephen -Phillips, three-fourths of a column; Henry Clarence -Kendall, eighteen lines; Roden Noel, twenty-eight -lines; Alexander Smith, twenty-five lines; -Lawrence Binyon, nineteen lines; Laurence Housman, -twenty-three lines; Ebenezer Jones, twenty-four -lines; Richard Le Gallienne, twenty lines; -Henry Newbolt, fifteen lines; and Arthur William -Edgar O’Shaughnessy, twenty-nine lines. -These names, together with the amount of space -devoted to them, will give an indication of the -thoroughness and liberality accorded British -poets.</p> - -<p>But these by no means complete the list. -Robert Bridges receives half a column, in which -we learn that “his work has had great influence -in a select circle, by its restraint, purity, precision, -and delicacy yet strength of expression.” And -in his higher flights “he is always noble and sometimes -sublime.... Spirituality informs his inspiration.” -Here we have an excellent example -of the Encyclopædia’s combination of the uplift -and hyperbole. More of the same moral encomium -is to be found in the biography of Christina -Rossetti, which is a column in length. Her -“sanctity” and “religious faith” are highly -praised; and the article ends with the words:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span> -“All that we really need to know about her, save -that she was a great saint, is that she was a great -poet.” Ah, yes! Saintliness—that cardinal requisite -in British æsthetics.</p> - -<p>An example of how the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> provincial -puritanism of judgment works against a poet is -to be found in the nearly-two-page biography of -Swinburne, wherein we read that “it is impossible -to acquit his poetry of the charge of animalism -which wars against the higher issues of the spirit.” -No, Swinburne was not a pious uplifter; he did -not use his art as a medium for evangelical exhortation. -Consequently his work does not comply -with the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> parochial standard. -And although Swinburne was contemporary with -Francis Thompson, it is said in the latter’s two-thirds-of-a-column -biography that “for glory of -inspiration and natural magnificence of utterance -he is unique among the poets of his time.” -Watts-Dunton also, in his three-fourths-of-a-column -biography, is praised lavishly and set -down as a “unique figure in the world of letters.”</p> - -<p>William Watson receives over a column of -biography, and is eulogized for his classic traditions -in an age of prosodic lawlessness. The -sentimental and inoffensive Austin Dobson apparently -is a high favorite with the editors of the -Encyclopædia, for he is given a column and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span> -three-fourths—more space than is given John Davidson, -Francis Thompson, William Watson, Watts-Dunton, -or Oscar Wilde—an allowance out of all -proportion to his importance.</p> - -<p>In closing this brief record of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica’s</cite> prodigal generosity to British poets, -it might be well to mention that Thomas Chatterton -receives a biography of five and a half -columns—a space considerably longer than that -given to Heine. Since Thomas Chatterton died -at the age of eighteen and Heinrich Heine did not -die until he was fifty-nine, I leave it to statisticians -to figure out how much more space than -Heine Chatterton would have received had he -lived to the age of the German poet.</p> - -<p>On turning to the French poets and bearing in -mind the long biographies accorded British poets, -one cannot help feeling amazed at the scant treatment -which the former receive. Baudelaire, for -instance, is given less space than Christina Rossetti, -William Watson, Henley, Coventry Patmore, -John Davidson, or Austin Dobson. Catulle -Mendès receives considerably less space than -Stephen Phillips. Verlaine is given equal space -with Watts-Dunton, and less than half the space -given to Austin Dobson! Stéphane Mallarmé receives -only half the space given to John Davidson, -Christina Rossetti, or William Watson.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span> -Jean Moréas receives only half the space given to -Sydney Dobell or Christina Rossetti. Viélé-Griffin -draws a shorter biography than Kendall, -the Australian poet; and Régnier and Bouchor -are dismissed in fewer words than is the Scotch -poet, Alexander Smith. Furthermore, these biographies -are rarely critical, being in the majority -of instances a cursory record of incomplete data.</p> - -<p>Here attention should be called to the fact that -only in the cases of the very inconsequent British -poets is criticism omitted: if the poet is even fairly -well known there is a discussion of his work and -an indication of the place he is supposed to hold -in his particular field. But with foreign writers—even -the very prominent ones—little or nothing -concerning them is vouchsafed save historical -facts, and these, as a general rule, fall far short -of completeness. The impression given is that -obscure Englishmen are more important than eminent -Frenchmen, Germans, or Americans. Evidently -the editors are of the opinion that if one -is cognizant of British culture one can easily dispense -with all other culture as inferior and unnecessary. -Otherwise how, except on the ground -of deliberate falsification, can one explain the liberal -treatment accorded English poets as compared -with the meagre treatment given French -poets?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span></p> - -<p>Since the important French poets mentioned receive -such niggardly and grudging treatment, it is -not to be wondered at that many other lesser poets—yet -poets who are of sufficient importance to be -included in an encyclopædia—should receive no -biographical mention. If you wish information -concerning Adolphe Retté, René de Ghil, Stuart -Merrill, Emmanuel Signoret, Jehan Rictus, Albert -Samain, Paul Fort, who is the leading balladist -of young France, Hérold, Quillard, or -Francis Jammes, you will have to go to a source -even more “supreme” than the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>. These poets were famous in 1900, and -even in America there had appeared at that time -critical considerations of their work. Again, one -ought to find, in so “complete” a “library” as the -<cite>Britannica</cite>, information concerning the principal -poets of the Belgian Renaissance. But of the -eight leading modern poets of Belgium only three -have biographies—Lemonnier, Maeterlinck, and -Verhaeren. There are no biographies of Eekhoud, -Rodenbach, Elskamp, Severin and Cammaerts.</p> - -<p>Turning to Italy we find even grosser injustice -and an even more woeful inadequacy in the treatment -accorded her modern poets. To be sure, -there are biographies of Carducci, Ferrari, Marradi, -Mazzoni, and Arturo Graf. But Alfredo<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span> -Baccelli, Domenico Gnoli, Giovanni Pascoli, -Mario Rapisardi, Chiarini, Panzacchi and Annie -Vivanti are omitted. There should be biographies -of these writers in an international encyclopædia -one-fourth the size of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Baccelli -and Rapisardi are perhaps the two most important -epic poets of modern Italy. Gnoli is one of the -leaders of the classical school. Chiarini is not -only a leading poet but is one of the first critics -of Italy as well. Panzacchi, the romantic, is second -only to the very greatest Italian poets of modern -times, and as far back as 1898 British critics -were praising him and regretting that he was not -better known in England. Annie Vivanti, born -in London, is a poet known and esteemed all over -Italy. (It may be noted here that Vivanti wrote -a vehement denunciation and repudiation of England -in <cite>Ave Albion</cite>.)</p> - -<p>But these names represent only part of the injustice -and neglect accorded modern Italian poetry -by the <cite>Britannica</cite>. There is not even so much as -a mention in the entire twenty-nine volumes of the -names of Alinda Bonacchi, the most widely known -woman poet in Italy; Capuano, who, besides being -a notable poet, is also a novelist, dramatist -and critic of distinction; Funcini (Tanfucio -Neri), a household word in Tuscany and one held -in high esteem all over Italy; “Countess Lara”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span> -(Eveline Cattermole), whose <cite>Versi</cite> gave her a -foremost place among the poets of her day; Pitteri, -who was famous as long ago as 1890; and Nencioni, -not only a fine poet but one of Italy’s great -critics. Nencioni has earned the reputation of -being the Sainte-Beuve of Italy, and it was he -who introduced Browning, Tennyson and Swinburne -to his countrymen. Then there are such -poets as Fontana, Bicci and Arnaboldi, who should -at least be mentioned in connection with modern -Italian literature, but whose names do not appear -in “this complete library of information.”</p> - -<p>But France, Belgium, and Italy, nevertheless, -have great cause for feeling honored when comparison -is made between the way the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> deals with their modern poetry -and the way it deals with modern German and -Austrian poetry. Of all the important recent -lyricists of Germany and Austria <em>only one</em> is given -a biography, and that biography is so brief and -inadequate as to be practically worthless for purposes -of enlightenment. The one favored poet is -Detlev von Liliencron. Liliencron is perhaps the -most commanding lyrical figure in all recent German -literature, and he receives just twenty-seven -lines, or about one-fifth of the space given to Austin -Dobson! But there are no biographies of -Richard Dehmel, Carl Busse, Stefan George, J. H.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span> -Mackay, Rainer Maria Rilke, Gustav Falke, -Ernst von Wolzogen, Karl Henckell, Dörmann, -Otto Julius Bierbaum, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal.</p> - -<p>There can be no excuse for many of these omissions. -Several of these names are of international -eminence. Their works have not been confined -to Germany, but have appeared in English translation. -They stand in the foremost rank of modern -literature, and both in England and America -there are critical books which accord them extensive -consideration. Without a knowledge of -them no one—not even a Britisher—can lay claim -to an understanding of modern letters. Yet the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> denies them space and -still poses as an adequate reference work.</p> - -<p>One may hope to find some adequate treatment -of the German lyric to recent years with its “remarkable -variety of new tones and pregnant -ideas,” in the article on <cite>German Literature</cite>. But -that hope will straightway be blasted when one -turns to the article in question. The entire new -renaissance in German poetry is dismissed in a -brief paragraph of thirty-one lines! It would -have been better to omit it altogether, for such a -cursory and inadequate survey of a significant subject -can result only in disseminating a most unjust -and distorted impression. And the bibliography<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span> -at the end of this article on modern German -literature reveals nothing so much as the lack -of knowledge on the part of the critic who compiled -it. Not only is the <cite>Britannica</cite> deficient in -its information, but it does not reveal the best -sources from which this omitted information might -be gained.</p> - -<p>An even more absurdly inadequate treatment is -accorded the poets of modern Sweden. Despite -the fact that Swedish literature is little known to -Americans, the poetry of that country ranks very -high—higher (according to some eminent critics) -than the poetry of France or Germany. But the -<cite>Britannica</cite> makes no effort to disturb our ignorance; -and so the great lyric poetry of Sweden since -1870 is barely touched upon. However, Mr. Edmund -Gosse, a copious contributor to the Encyclopædia, -has let the cat out of the bag. In one -of his books he has pronounced Fröding, Levertin -and Heidenstam “three very great lyrical artists,” -and has called Snoilsky a poet of “unquestioned -force and fire.” Turning to the <cite>Britannica</cite> we -find that Snoilsky is dismissed with half the space -given Sydney Dobell and a third of the space given -Patmore. Levertin receives only a third of a column; -and Fröding is denied any biography whatever. -He is thrown in with a batch of minor -writers under <cite>Sweden</cite>. Heidenstam, the new<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span> -Nobel prize-winner, a poet who, according to -Charles Wharton Stork, “stands head and shoulders -above any now writing in England,” receives -only eight lines in the general notice! And Karlfeldt, -another important lyrist, who is the Secretary -of the Swedish Academy, is considered unworthy -of even a word in the “supreme” <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>It would seem that unfair and scant treatment -of a country’s poetry could go no further. But if -you will seek for information concerning American -poetry you will find a deficiency which is even -greater than that which marks the treatment of -modern Swedish poetry.</p> - -<p>Here again it might be in place to call attention -to the hyperbolical claims on which the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> has been sold in America. -In the flamboyant and unsubstantiable advertising -of this reference work you will no doubt recall -the claim: “It will tell you more about -everything than you can get from any other -source.” And perhaps you will also remember -the statement: “The <cite>Britannica</cite> is a complete -<em>library</em> of knowledge on every subject appealing -to intelligent persons.” It may be, of course, that -the editors believe that the subject of American -literature does not, or at least should not, appeal -to any but ignorant persons, and that, in fact, only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span> -middle-class English culture can possibly interest -the intelligent. But unless such a belief can be -proved to be correct, the American buyers of this -Encyclopædia have a grave and legitimate complaint -against the editors for the manner in which -the books were foisted upon them. The <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, as I have pointed out, is <em>not</em> a -complete library of knowledge on the subject of -literature; and in the following pages I shall show -that its gross inadequacy extends to many other -very important fields of endeavor. Moreover, its -incompleteness is most glaringly obvious in the -field of American æsthetic effort—a field which, -under the circumstances, should be the last to be -neglected.</p> - -<p>On the subject of American poetry it is deficient -almost to the extreme of worthlessness. In the -article, <cite>American Literature</cite>, written by George -E. Woodberry, we discover that truly British spirit -and viewpoint which regards nothing as worth -while unless it is old or eminently respectable and -accepted. The result is that, in the paragraph on -our poetry, such men as Aldrich, Stedman, Richard -Watson Gilder, Julia Ward Howe, H. H. -Brownell and Henry Van Dyke are mentioned; -but very few others. As a supreme surrender to -modernity the names of Walt Whitman, Eugene -Field, James Whitcomb Riley and Joaquin Miller<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span> -are included. The great wealth of American -poetry, which is second only to that of England, -is not even suggested.</p> - -<p>Turning to the biography of Edgar Allan Poe, -we find that this writer receives only a column -and a half, less space than is given Austin Dobson, -Coventry Patmore, or W. E. Henley! And the -biography itself is so inept that it is an affront to -American taste and an insult to American intelligence. -One is immediately interested in learning -what critic the Encyclopædia’s editors chose -to represent this American who has long since become -a world figure in literature. Turning to the -index we discover that one David Hannay is the -authority—a gentleman who was formerly the -British Vice-Consul at Barcelona. Mr. Hannay -(apparently he holds no academic degree of any -kind) lays claim to fame chiefly, it seems, as the -author of <cite>Short History of the Royal Navy</cite>; but -in just what way his research in naval matters -qualifies him to write on Poe is not indicated. -This is not, however, the only intimation we had -that in the minds of the Encyclopædia’s editors -there exists some esoteric and recondite relationship -between art and British sea-power. In the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> criticism of J. M. W. Turner’s paintings, -that artist’s work is said to be “like the British -fleet among the navies of the world.” In the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span> -present instance, however, we can only trust that -the other articles in this encyclopædia, by Mr. -Hannay—to-wit: <cite>Admiral Penn</cite> and <cite>Pirate and -Piracy</cite>—are more competent than his critique on -Poe.</p> - -<p>Walt Whitman gets scarcely better treatment. -His biography is no longer than Poe’s and contains -little criticism and no suggestion of his true -place in American letters. This is all the more -astonishing when we recall the high tribute paid -Whitman by eminent English critics. Surely the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors are not ignorant of Whitman’s -place in modern letters or of the generous manner -in which he had been received abroad. Whatever -one’s opinion of him, he was a towering figure -in our literature—a pioneer who had more influence -on our later writers than any other American. -And yet his biography in this great British -cultural work is shorter than that of Mrs. Humphry -Ward!</p> - -<p>With such obviously inadequate and contemptuous -treatment as that accorded Poe and Whitman, -it is not surprising that all other American poets -should be treated peremptorily or neglected entirely. -There are very short biographical notes -on Stedman, Louise Chandler Moulton, Sill, Gilder, -Eugene Field, Sidney Lanier and Riley—but -they are scant records of facts and most insufficient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span> -when compared to the biographies of second-rate -poets of England.</p> - -<p>But let us be grateful that the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> was generous enough to record them at -all; for one can look in vain through its entire -twenty-nine volumes, no matter under what heading, -for even a mention of Emily Dickinson, John -Bannister Tabb, Florence Earle Coates, Edwin -Markham, Lizette Woodworth Reese, Clinton -Scollard, Louise Imogen Guiney, Richard Hovey, -Madison Cawein, Edwin Arlington Robinson, -George Sylvester Viereck, Ridgeley Torrence, -Arthur Upson, Santayana, and many others who -hold an important place in our literature. And -the names of William Vaughn Moody, Percy -MacKaye and Bliss Carman are merely mentioned -casually, the first two under <cite>Drama</cite> and the last -under <cite>Canadian Literature</cite>.</p> - -<p>The palpable injustice in the complete omission -of many of the above American names is rendered -all the more glaring by the fact that the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> pays high tribute to such minor -British poets and versifiers as W. H. Davies, -Sturge Moore, Locker Lampson, C. M. Doughty, -Walter de la Mare, Alfred Noyes, Herbert -Trench, Ernest Dowson, Mrs. Meynell, A. E. -Housman and Owen Seaman.</p> - -<p>This is the culture disseminated by the <cite>Encyclopædia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span> -Britannica</cite>, which “is a complete <em>library</em> of -knowledge on every subject appealing to intelligent -persons,” and which “will tell you more -about everything than you can get from any other -source!” This is the “supreme book of knowledge” -which Americans are asked to buy in preference -to all others. What pettier insult could one -nation offer to another?</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_V">V<br /> -<span class="smaller">BRITISH PAINTING</span></h2> - -<p>If one hopes to find in the Eleventh Edition of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> an unprejudiced critical -and biographical survey of the world’s painters, -he will be sorely disappointed. Not only is the -Encyclopædia not comprehensive and up-to-date, -but the manner in which British art and artists -are constantly forced to the front rank is so grossly -biased that a false impression of æsthetic history -and art values is almost an inevitable result, unless -one is already equipped with a wide understanding -of the subject. If one were to form an -opinion of art on the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> articles, the -opinion would be that English painting leads the -modern world in both amount and quality. The -Encyclopædia raises English academicians to the -ranks of exalted greatness, and at the same time -tends to tear down the pedestals whereon rest the -truly towering geniuses of alien nationality.</p> - -<p>So consistently does British <i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> prejudice -and complacency characterize the material on -painting contained in this Encyclopædia, that any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span> -attempt to get from it an æsthetic point of view -which would be judicious and universal, would -fail utterly. Certain French, German, and American -artists of admitted importance are considered -unworthy of space, or, if indeed deserving of mention, -are unworthy of the amount of space, or the -praise, which is conferred on a large number of -lesser English painters. Both by implication and -direct statement the editors have belittled the -æsthetic endeavor of foreign nations, and have exaggerated, -to an almost unbelievable degree, the -art of their own country. The manner in which -the subject of painting is dealt with reveals the -full-blown flower of British insularity, and apotheosizes -the narrow, aggressive culture of British -middle-class respectability. In the world’s art -from 1700 on, comparatively little merit is recognized -beyond the English Channel.</p> - -<p>The number of English painters whose biographies -appear in the <cite>Britannica</cite> would, I believe, -astonish even certain English art critics; -and the large amount of space devoted to them—even -to inconsequent and obscure academicians—when -compared with the brief notices given to -greater painters of other nations, leaves the un-British -searcher with a feeling of bewilderment. -But not only with the large number of English -painters mentioned or even with the obviously<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span> -disproportionate amount of space devoted to them -does the Encyclopædia’s chauvinistic campaign -for England’s æsthetic supremacy cease. The -criticisms which accompany these biographies are -as a rule generously favorable; and, in many cases, -the praise reaches a degree of extravagance which -borders on the absurd.</p> - -<p>Did this optimism of outlook, this hot desire -to ferret out greatness where only mediocrity -exists, this ambition to drag the obscure and inept -into the glare of prominence, extend to all painters, -regardless of nationality, one might forgive -the superlative eulogies heaped upon British art, -and attribute them to that mellow spirit of sentimental -tolerance which sees good in everything. -But, alas! such impartiality does not exist. It -would seem that the moment the biographers of -the <cite>Britannica</cite> put foot on foreign ground, their -spirit of generosity deserts them. And if space -is any indication of importance, it must be noted -that English painters are, in the editors’ estimation, -of considerably more importance than painters -from abroad.</p> - -<p>Of William Etty, to whom three-fourths of a -page is devoted, we are told that “in feeling and -skill as a colorist he has few equals.” The implication -here that Etty, as a colorist, has never -been surpassed scarcely needs refutation. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span> -unfortunate, however, that Mr. Etty is not with -us at present to read this exorbitant testimony to -his greatness, for it would astonish him, no doubt, -as much as it would those other few unnamed -painters who are regarded as his equals in color -<i lang="fr">sensibilité</i>. J. S. Cotman, we discover, was “a remarkable -painter both in oil and water-color.” -This criticism is characteristic, for, even when -there are no specific qualities to praise in an English -painter’s work, we find this type of vague -recommendation.</p> - -<p>No points, though, it would seem, are overlooked. -Regard the manner in which J. D. Harding’s -questionable gifts are recorded. “Harding,” -you will find, “was noted for facility, sureness of -hand, nicety of touch, and the various qualities -which go to make up an elegant, highly-trained -and accomplished sketcher from nature, and composer -of picturesque landscape material; he was -particularly skillful in the treatment of foliage.” -Turning from Mr. Harding, the “elegant” and -“accomplished” depicter of foliage, to Birket Foster, -we find that his work “is memorable for its -delicacy and minute finish, and for its daintiness -and pleasantness of sentiment.” Dainty and -pleasant sentiment is not without weight with the -art critics of this encyclopædia. In one form or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span> -another it is mentioned very often in connection -with British painters.</p> - -<p>Landseer offers an excellent example of the -middle-class attitude which the <cite>Britannica</cite> takes -toward art. To judge from the page-and-a-half -biography of this indifferent portraitist of animals -one would imagine that Landseer was a -great painter, for we are told that his <cite>Fighting -Dogs Getting Wind</cite> is “perfectly drawn, solidly -and minutely finished, and carefully composed.” -Of what possible educational value is an art article -which would thus criticise a Landseer picture?</p> - -<p>An English painter who, were we to accept the -Encyclopædia’s valuation, combines the qualities -of several great painters is Charles Holroyd. “In -all his work,” we learn, “Holroyd displays an impressive -sincerity, with a fine sense of composition, -and of style, allied to independent and modern -thinking.” Truly a giant! It would be difficult -to recall any other painter in history “all” of -whose work displayed a “fine sense of composition.” -Not even could this be said of Michelangelo. -But when it comes to composition, Arthur -Melville apparently soars above his fellows. Besides, -“several striking portraits in oil,” he did a -picture called <cite>The Return From the Crucifixion</cite>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span> -which, so we are told, is a “powerful, colossal composition.” -To have achieved only a “powerful” -composition should have been a sufficiently remarkable -feat for a painter of Mr. Melville’s -standing; for only of a very few masters in the -world’s history can it be said that their compositions -were both powerful and colossal. El Greco, -Giotto, Giorgione, Veronese, Titian, Michelangelo -and Rubens rarely soared to such heights.</p> - -<p>But Melville, it appears, had a contemporary -who, if anything, was greater than he—to-wit: -W. Q. Orchardson, to whose glories nearly a page -is devoted. “By the time he was twenty,” says -his biographer, “Orchardson had mastered the essentials -of his art.” In short, at twenty he had -accomplished what few painters accomplished in -a lifetime. A truly staggering feat! We are not -therefore surprised to learn that “as a portrait -painter Orchardson must be placed in the first -class.” Does this not imply that he ranked with -Titian, Velazquez, Rubens and Rembrandt? -What sort of an idea of the relative values in art -will the uninformed person get from such loose -and ill-considered rhetoric, especially when the -critic goes on to say that <cite>Master Baby</cite> is “a masterpiece -of design, color and broad execution”? -There is much more eulogy of a similar careless -variety, but enough has been quoted here to show<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span> -that the world must entirely revise its opinions -of art if the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica’s</cite> statements -are to be accepted.</p> - -<p>Even the pictures of Paul Wilson Steer are -criticised favorably: “His figure subjects and -landscapes show great originality and technical -skill.” And John Pettie was “in his best days a -colorist of a high order and a brilliant executant.” -George Reid, the Scottish artist, is accorded over -half a column with detailed criticism and praise. -Frederick Walker is given no less than an entire -column which ends with a paragraph of fulsome -eulogy. Even E. A. Waterlow painted landscapes -which were “admirable” and “handled with -grace and distinction”—more gaudy generalizations. -When the Encyclopædia’s critics can find -no specific point to praise in the work of their countrymen, -grace, distinction, elegance and sentiment -are turned into æsthetic virtues.</p> - -<p>Turning to Hogarth, we find no less than three -and one-half pages devoted to him, more space -than is given to Rubens’s biography, and three -times the space accorded Veronese! It was once -thought that Hogarth was only an “ingenious -humorist,” but “time has reversed that unjust -sentence.” We then read that Hogarth’s composition -leaves “little or nothing to be desired.” -If such were the case, he would unquestionably<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span> -rank with Rubens, Michelangelo and Titian; for, -if indeed his composition leaves little or nothing -to be desired, he is as great as, or even greater -than, the masters of all time. But even with this -eulogy the Encyclopædia’s critic does not rest content. -As a humorist and a satirist upon canvas, -“he has never been equalled.” If we regard -Hogarth as an “author” rather than artist, “his -place is with the great masters of literature—with -the Thackerays and Fieldings, the Cervantes and -Molières.” (Note that of these four “great masters” -two are English.)</p> - -<p>Mastery in one form or another, if the <cite>Britannica</cite> -is to be believed, was common among English -painters. The pictures of Richard Wilson -are “skilled and learned compositions ... the -work of a painter who was thoroughly master of -his materials.” In this latter respect Mr. Wilson -perhaps stands alone among the painters of the -world; and yet, through some conspiracy of silence -no doubt, the leading critics of other nations rarely -mention him when speaking of those artists who -thoroughly mastered their materials. In regard -to Raeburn, the Encyclopædia is less fulsome, despite -the fact that over a page is allotted him. We -are distinctly given to understand that he had his -faults. Velazquez, however, constantly reminded -Wilkie of Raeburn; yet, after all, Raeburn was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span> -not quite so great as Velazquez. This is frankly -admitted.</p> - -<p>It was left to Reynolds to equal if not to surpass -Velazquez as well as Rubens and Rembrandt. -In a two-page glorification of this English painter -we come upon the following panegyric: “There -can be no question of placing him by the side of -the greatest Venetians or of the triumvirate of the -seventeenth century, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez.” -If by placing him beside these giants is -meant that he in any wise approached their stature, -there can be, and has been, outside of England, -a very great question of putting him in such company. -In fact, his right to such a place has been -very definitely denied him. But the unprejudiced -opinion of the world matters not to the patriots -who edited the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. That -“supreme” English reference work goes on to say -that in portraits, such as <cite>Mrs. Siddons as the -Tragic Muse</cite>, Reynolds “holds the field.... No -portrait painter has been more happy in his poses -for single figures.” Then, as if such enthusiasm -were not enough, we are told that “nature had -singled out Sir Joshua to endow him with certain -gifts in which he has hardly an equal.”</p> - -<p>Nature, it seems, in her singling out process, -was particularly partial to Englishmen, for among -those other painters who just barely equalled<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span> -Reynolds’s transcendent genius was Gainsborough. -Says the <cite>Britannica</cite>: “Gainsborough and Reynolds -rank side by side.... It is difficult to say -which stands the higher of the two.” Consequently -hereafter we must place Gainsborough, -too, along with Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt -and Velazquez! Such a complete revision -of æsthetic judgment will, no doubt, be difficult -at first, but, by living with the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -and absorbing its British culture, we may -in time be able to bracket Michelangelo, Reynolds, -Rubens, Gainsborough, Rembrandt, Hogarth -and Velazquez without the slightest hesitation.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to conceive how, in an encyclopædia -with lofty educational pretences, extravagance -of statement could attain so high a point -as that reached in the biographies of Reynolds and -Gainsborough. So obviously indefensible are -these valuations that I would hesitate to accuse -the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors of deliberate falsification—that -is, of purposely distorting æsthetic values -for the benefit of English artists. Their total -lack of discretion indicates an honest, if blind, belief -in British æsthetic supremacy. But this fact -does not lessen the danger of such judgments to -the American public. As a nation we are ignorant -of painting and therefore are apt to accept<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span> -statements of this kind which have the impact of -seeming authority behind them.</p> - -<p>The same insular and extravagant point of view -is discoverable in the article on Turner. To this -painter nearly five pages are devoted—a space out -of all proportion to the biographies of the other -painters of the world. Titian has only three and -one-half pages; Rubens has only a little over three -pages; and El Greco has less than two-thirds of a -page! Of course, it is not altogether fair to base -a judgment on space alone; but such startling discrepancies -are the rule and not the exception.</p> - -<p>In the case of Turner the discrepancy is not -only of space, however. In diction, as well, all -relative values are thrown to the winds. In the -criticism of Turner we find English patriotism at -its high-water mark. We read that “the range -of his powers was so vast that he covered the whole -field of nature and united in his own person the -classical and naturalistic schools.” Even this palpable -overstatement could be forgiven, since it -has a basis of truth, if a little further we did not -discover that Turner’s <cite>Crossing the Brook</cite> in the -London National Academy is “probably the most -perfect landscape in the world.” In this final and -irrevocable judgment is manifest the supreme insular -egotism which characterizes nearly all the -art articles in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. This<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span> -criticism, to take merely one example, means that -<cite>Crossing the Brook</cite> is more perfect than Rubens’s -<cite>Landscape with Château de Stein</cite>! But the Encyclopædia’s -summary of Turner’s genius surpasses -in flamboyant chauvinism anything which -I have yet seen in print. It is said that, despite -any exception we may take to his pictures, “there -will still remain a body of work which for extent, -variety, truth and artistic taste is like the -British fleet among the navies of the world.” -Here patriotic fervor has entirely swallowed all -restraint.</p> - -<p>Over a page is devoted to Constable, in which -we are informed that his “vivid tones and fresh -color are grafted upon the formulæ of Claude and -Rubens.” This type of criticism is not rare. One -frequently finds second-rate English artists compared -not unfavorably with the great artists of -other nations; and it would seem that the English -painters add a little touch of their own, the imputation -being that they not seldom improve upon -their models. Thus Constable adds “vivid tones -and fresh colors” to Rubens’s formula. Another -instance of this kind is to be found in the case of -Alfred Stevens, the British sculptor, not the Belgian -painter. (The latter, by the way, though -more important and better-known, receives less -space than the Englishman.) The vigorous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span> -strength of his groups “recalls the style of Michelangelo, -but Stevens’s work throughout is original -and has a character of its own.” I do not -deny that Stevens imitated Michelangelo, but, -where English artists are concerned, these relationships -are indicated in deceptive phraseology. -In the case of French artists, whose biographies are -sometimes written by unbiased critics, the truth is -not hidden in dictional suavities. Imitation is not -made a virtue.</p> - -<p>Let us now turn to Watts. Over two pages -are accorded him, one page being devoted largely -to eulogy, a passage of which reads: “It was the -rare combination of supreme handicraft with a -great imaginative intellect which secured to Watts -his undisputed place in the public estimation of -his day.” Furthermore, we hear of “the grandeur -and dignity of his style, the ease and purposefulness -of his brushwork, the richness and harmoniousness -of his coloring.” But those “to whom his -exceptional artistic attainment is a sealed book -have gathered courage or consolation from the -grave moral purpose and deep human sympathy -of his teaching.” Here we have a perfect example -of the parochial moral uplift which permeates -the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> art criticism. The great Presbyterian -complex is found constantly in the judgments -of this encyclopædia.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span></p> - -<p>So important a consideration to the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -critico-moralists is this puritan motif that the fact -is actually set down that Millais was devoted to -his family! One wonders how much influence -this domestic devotion had on the critic who spends -a page and a half to tell us of Millais, for not -only is this space far in excess of Millais’ importance, -but the statement is made that he was -“one of the greatest painters of his time,” and -that “he could paint what he saw with a force -which has seldom been excelled.” Unfortunately -the few who excelled him are not mentioned. -Perhaps he stood second only to Turner, -that super-dreadnought. Surely he was not excelled -by Renoir, or Courbet, or Pissarro, or -Monet, or Manet, or Cézanne; for these latter -are given very little space (the greatest of them -having no biography whatever in the Encyclopædia!); -and there is no evidence to show that -they are considered of more than minor importance.</p> - -<p>Perhaps it was Rossetti, a fellow Pre-Raphaelite, -who excelled Millais in painting what he saw. -Rossetti’s <cite>The Song of Solomon</cite>, as regards brilliance, -finish and the splendor of its lighting, -“occupies a great place in the highest grade of -modern art of all the world.” Even Holman -Hunt, one of the lesser Pre-Raphaelites, is given<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span> -over a full page, and is spoken of in glowing -terms. “Perhaps no painter of the nineteenth -century,” we read, “produced so great an impression -by a few pictures” as did Hunt; and during -the course of the eulogy the critic speaks of -Hunt’s “greatness.” Can it be that the naïf -gentleman who wrote Hunt’s biography has never -heard of Courbet, or Manet, or of the Impressionists, -or Cézanne? After so sweeping and unreasoned -a statement as the one concerning the -great impression made by Hunt’s pictures, such an -extreme conclusion is almost inevitable. Or is -this critic’s patriotic vanity such that he considers -an impression made in England as representative -of the world? Even to intimate that the impression -made by Hunt’s pictures was comparable to -that made by <cite>L’Enterrement à Ornans</cite> or <cite>Le -Déjeuner sur l’Herbe</cite>, or that the Pre-Raphaelites -possessed even half the importance of Courbet and -Manet, is to carry undeserved laudation to preposterous -lengths.</p> - -<p>Here as elsewhere, superlatives are used in such -a way in describing unimportant English painters -that no adequate adjectives are left for the truly -great men of other nationality. It would be difficult -to find a better example of undeserving -eulogy as applied to an inconsequent British -painter than that furnished by Brangwyn, whose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span> -compositions, we are astonished to learn, have “a -nobly impressive and universal character.” Such -a statement might justly sum up the greatness of -a Michelangelo statue; but here it is attached to -the works of a man who at best is no more than -a capable and clever illustrator.</p> - -<p>The foregoing examples by no means include -all the instances of how English painters, as a result -of the liberal space allotted them and the -lavish encomiums heaped upon them by the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica’s</cite> editors, are unduly expanded -into great and important figures. A -score of other names could be mentioned. From -beginning to end, English art is emphasized and -lauded until it is out of all proportion to the rest -of the world.</p> - -<p>Turn to the article on <cite>Painting</cite> and look at the -sub-title, “Recent Schools.” Under “British” -you will find twelve columns, with inset headings. -Under “French” you will find only seven -columns, without insets. Practically all the advances -made in modern art have come out of -France; and practically all important modern -painters have been Frenchmen. England has -contributed little or nothing to modern painting. -And yet, recent British schools are given nearly -twice the space that is devoted to recent French -schools! Again regard the article, <cite>Sculpture</cite>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span> -Even a greater and more astonishing disproportionment -exists here. Modern British sculpture is -given no less than thirteen and a half columns, -while modern French sculpture, of vastly greater -æsthetic importance, is given only seven and a -half columns!</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_VI">VI<br /> -<span class="smaller">NON-BRITISH PAINTING</span></h2> - -<p>If the same kind of panegyrics which characterize -the biographies of the British painters in the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> were used in dealing -with the painters of all nationalities, there could -be made no charge of either unconscious or deliberate -injustice. But once we leave Great Britain’s -shores, prodigal laudation ceases. As if -worn out by the effort of proving that Englishmen -are pre-eminent among the world’s painters, -the editors devote comparatively little space to -those non-British artists who, we have always -believed and been taught, were the truly significant -men in painting. Therefore, if the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -implications are to be believed, England -alone, among all modern countries, is the home of -genius. And it would be difficult for one not -well informed to escape the impression that not -only Turner, but English painting in general, is -“like the British fleet among the navies of the -world.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span></p> - -<p>A comparison, for instance, between English -and French painters, as they are presented in this -encyclopædia, would leave the neophyte with the -conviction that France was considerably inferior -in regard to graphic ability, as inferior, in fact—if -we may read the minds of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -editors—as the French fleet is to the British fleet. -In its ignorant and un-English way the world for -years has been laboring under the superstition that -the glories of modern painting had been largely -the property of France. But such a notion is now -corrected.</p> - -<p>For instance, we had always believed that -Chardin was one of the greatest of still-life -painters. We had thought him to be of exceeding -importance, a man with tremendous influence, -deserving of no little consideration. But when -we turn to his biography in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> we are, to say the least, astonished at -the extent of our over-valuation. He is dismissed -with six lines! And the only critical comment -concerning him is: “He became famous for his -still-life pictures and domestic interiors.” And -yet Thomas Stothard, an English painter who for -twenty-five years was Chardin’s contemporary, is -given over a column; James Northcote, another -English contemporary of Chardin’s, is given half -a column; and many other British painters, whose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span> -names are little known outside of England, have -long biographies and favorable criticisms.</p> - -<p>Watteau, one of the greatest of French -painters, has a biography of only a page and a -quarter; Largillière, half a column; Rigaud, less -than half a column; Lancret, a third of a column; -and Boucher has only fifteen lines—a mere -note with no criticism. (Jonathan Boucher, an -English divine, whose name follows that of -Boucher, is accorded three times the space!) La -Tour and Nattier have half a column each. -Greuze, another one of France’s great eighteenth-century -painters, is given only a column and a -half with unfavorable comment. Greuze’s brilliant -reputation seemed to have been due, “not to -his requirements as a painter” but to the subjects -of his pictures; and he is then adversely accused -of possessing that very quality which in an English -painter, as we have seen, is a mark of supreme -glory—namely, “<i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> morality.” Half a -column only is required to comment on Horace -Vernet and to tell us that his most representative -picture “begins and ends nowhere, and the composition -is all to pieces; but it has good qualities -of faithful and exact representation.”</p> - -<p>Fragonard, another French painter whom we -had always thought possessed of at least a minor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span> -greatness, is accorded no more than a column, less -than half the space given to B. R. Haydon, the -eighteenth-century English historical painter, and -only one-third of the space devoted to David -Wilkie, the Scotch painter. Fragonard’s “scenes -of love and voluptuousness,” comments that art -critic of the London <cite>Daily Mail</cite>, who has been -chosen to represent this French painter in the Encyclopædia, -“are only made acceptable by the -tender beauty of his color and the virtuosity of his -facile brushwork.” Alas! that Fragonard did not -possess the “grave moral purpose” of Watts! -Had his work been less voluptuous he might have -been given more than a fourth of the space devoted -to that moral Englishman, for surely -Fragonard was the greater painter.</p> - -<p>Géricault, one of the very important innovators -of French realism, is given half a column, about -an equal amount of space with such English -painters as W. E. Frost, T. S. Cooper, Thomas -Creswick, Francis Danby and David Scott; only -about half the amount of space given to John Gilbert, -C. L. Eastlake, and William Mulready; and -only one-third of the space given to David Cox. -One or two such disparities in space might be -overlooked, but when to almost any kind of an -English painter is imputed an importance equal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span> -to, if not greater than, truly significant painters -from France, bias, whether conscious or unconscious, -has been established.</p> - -<p>Again regard Poussin. This artist, the most -representative painter of his epoch and a man -who marked a distinct step in the evolution of -graphic art, is given less than half a page, about -equal to the space devoted to W. P. Frith, J. W. -Gordon, Samuel Cousins, John Crome, William -Strang, and Thornhill; and only half the space -given to Holman Hunt, and only one-third the -space given to Millais! There is almost no criticism -of Poussin’s art; merely a statement of the -type of work he did; and of Géricault there is no -criticism whatever. Herein lies another means -by which, through implication, a greater relative -significance is conferred on English art. Generally -British painters—even minor ones—are -criticised favorably, from one standpoint or another; -but only now and then is a Frenchman -given specific complimentary criticism. And -often a Frenchman is condemned for the very -quality which is lauded in a British artist.</p> - -<p>Of David it is written: “His style is severely -academic, his color lacking in richness and -warmth, his execution hard and uninteresting in -its very perfection,” and more in the same derogatory -strain. Although this criticism may be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span> -strictly accurate, the same qualities in certain -English painters of far less importance than -David are made the basis for praise. The severely -academic style in the case of Harding, for -instance, becomes an “elegant, highly-trained” -characteristic. And perfection of execution -makes Birket Foster’s work “memorable for its -delicacy and minute finish,” and becomes, in Paul -Wilson Steer’s pictures, “great technical skill.”</p> - -<p>Ingres, truly one of the giants of his day, is -given little or no criticism and his biography -draws only a little over half the space which is -given to Watts (with his “grave, moral purpose”), -and only a trifle more space than is given -Millais, the Pre-Raphaelite who was “devoted to -his family.” In Guerin’s short biography we -read of his “strained and pompous dignity.” -Girodet’s biography contains very adverse criticism: -his style “harmonized ill” with his subjects, -and his work was full of “incongruity” even -to the point sometimes of being “ludicrous.” -Gros, exasperated by criticism, “sought refuge in -the grosser pleasures of life.” Flandrin also is -tagged with a moral criticism.</p> - -<p>Coming down to the more modern painters we -find even less consideration given them by the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors. Delacroix, who ushered in -a new age of painting and brought composition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span> -back to art after a period of stagnation and -quiescence, is nailed to France as follows: “As -a colorist and a romantic painter he now ranks -among the greatest of French artists.” Certainly -not among the greatest English painters, for Constable -is given more space than Delacroix; and -Turner, the other precursor of the new era, is “like -the British fleet among the navies of the world.”</p> - -<p>Courbet, the father of modern painting and the -artist who revolutionized æsthetics, is given half -a column, equal space with those contemporaries -of his from across the Channel, Francis Grant, -Thomas Creswick and George Harvey. Perhaps -this neglect of the great Frenchman is explained -by the following early-Victorian complaint: -“Sometimes, it must be owned, his realism is -rather coarse and brutal.” And we learn that -“he died of a disease of the liver aggravated by -intemperance.” Courbet, unable to benefit by -the pious and elegant <i lang="fr">esthétique</i> of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, was never deeply impressed by -the artistic value of “daintiness and pleasantness -of sentiment,” and as a result, perhaps, he is not -held in as high esteem as is Birket Foster, who -possessed those delicate and pleasing qualities.</p> - -<p>The palpable, insular injustice dealt Courbet -in point of space finds another victim in Daumier -whose biography is almost as brief as that of Courbet.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span> -Most of it, however, is devoted to Daumier’s -caricature. Although this type of work -was but a phase of his development, the article -says that, despite his caricatures, “he found time -for flight in the higher sphere of painting.” Not -only does this create a false impression of Daumier’s -tremendous importance to modern painting, -but it gives the erroneous idea that his -principal <i lang="fr">métier</i> was caricature. The entire -criticism of his truly great work is summed up in -the sentence: “As a painter, Daumier, one of the -pioneers of naturalism, was before his time.” -Likewise, the half-page biography of Manet is, -from the standpoint of space, inadequate, and -from the critical standpoint, incompetent. To -say that he is “regarded as the most important -master of Impressionism” is a false statement. -Manet, strictly speaking, was not an Impressionist -at all; and the high place that he holds in modern -art is not even touched upon.</p> - -<p>Such biographies as the foregoing are sufficiently -inept to disqualify the Encyclopædia as -a source for accurate æsthetic information; but -when Renoir, who is indeed recognized as the -great master of Impressionism, is dismissed with -one-fifth of a page, the height of injustice has -been reached. Renoir, even in academic circles, -is admittedly one of the great painters of all time.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span> -Not only did he sum up the Impressionists, close -up an experimental cycle, and introduce compositional -form into the realistic painting of his -day, but by his colossal vision and technical -mastery he placed himself in the very front rank -of all modern painters, if not of ancient painters -as well. Yet he is accorded just twenty-seven -lines and dismissed with this remark: “Though -he is perhaps the most unequal of the great Impressionists, -his finest works rank among the -masterpieces of the modern French school.” -Critical incompetency could scarcely go further. -We can only excuse such inadequacy and ignorance -on the ground that the Encyclopædia’s English -critic has seen none of Renoir’s greatest work; -and color is lent this theory when we note that in -the given list of his paintings no mention is made -of his truly masterful canvases.</p> - -<p>Turning to the other lesser moderns in French -painting but those who surpass the contemporaneous -British painters who are given liberal biographies, -we find them very decidedly neglected -as to both space and comment. Such painters as -Cazin, Harpignies, Ziem, Cormon, Bésnard, Cottet -and Bonnot are dismissed with brief mention, -whereas sometimes twice and three times the attention -is paid to English painters like Alfred -East, Harry Furniss (a caricaturist and illustrator),<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span> -Francis Lathrop, E. J. Poynter, and W. B. -Richmond. Even Meissonier and Puvis de Chavannes -draw only three-fourths of a page. -Pissarro and Monet, surely important painters in -the modern evolution, are given short shrift. A -few brief facts concerning Pissarro extend to -twenty lines; and Monet gets a quarter of a page -without any criticism save that “he became a <i lang="fr">plein -air</i> painter.” Examples of this kind of incompetent -and insufficient comment could be multiplied.</p> - -<p>The most astonishing omission, however, in the -entire art division of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -is that of Cézanne. Here is a painter who, -whether one appreciates his work or not, has admittedly -had more influence than any man of -modern times. Not only in France has his tremendous -power been felt, but in practically every -other civilized country. Yet the name of this -great Frenchman is not even given biographical -mention in the great English Encyclopædia with -its twenty-nine volumes, its 30,000 pages, its -500,000 references, and its 44,000,000 words. -Deliberately to omit Cézanne’s biography, in view -of his importance and (in the opinion of many) -his genuine greatness, is an act of almost unbelievable -narrow-mindedness. To omit his biography -unconsciously is an act of almost unbelievable -ignorance. Especially is this true when we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span> -find biographies of such British contemporaries of -Cézanne as Edward John Gregory, James -Guthrie, Luke Fildes, H. W. B. Davis, John -Buxton Knight, George Reid, and J. W. Waterhouse. -Nor can the editors offer the excuse that -Cézanne was not known when the Encyclopædia -was compiled. Not only was he known, but -books and criticisms had appeared on him in more -than one language, and his greatness had been -recognized. True, he had not reached England; -but is it not the duty of the editor of an “international” -encyclopædia to be aware of what -is going on outside of his own narrow province?</p> - -<p>Any encyclopædia, no matter what the nationality, -prejudices or tastes of its editors, which -omits Cézanne has forfeited its claim to universal -educational value. But when in addition there -is no biographical mention of such conspicuous -French painters as Maurice Denis, Vollatton, Lucien -Simon, Vuillard, Louis Le Grand, Toulouse-Lautrec, -Steinlen, Jean Paul Laurens, Redon, -René Ménard, Gauguin, and Carrière, although -a score of lesser painters of British birth are included, -petty national prejudice, whether through -conscious intent or lack of information, has been -carried to an extreme; and the editors of such a -biased work have something to answer for to those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span> -readers who are not English, and who do not -therefore believe that British middle-class culture -should be exaggerated and glorified at the expense -of the genuine intellectual culture of other -nations.</p> - -<p>Modern German painting fares even worse -than French painting in the pages of the <cite>Britannica</cite>; -and while it does not hold the high place -that French painting does, it is certainly deserving -of far more liberal treatment than that which -is accorded it. The comparatively few biographies -of German artists are inadequate; but it -is not in them that we find the greatest neglect of -German achievements in this branch of æsthetics: -it is in the long list of conspicuous painters who -are omitted entirely. The <cite>Britannica’s</cite> meagre -information on German art is particularly regrettable -from the standpoint of American readers; -for the subject is little known in this country, and -as a nation we are woefully ignorant of the wealth -of nineteenth-century German painting. The -causes for this ignorance need not be gone into -here. Suffice it to say that the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, far from fulfilling its function as a -truly educational work, is calculated to perpetuate -and cement our lack of knowledge in this field. -It would appear that England also is unacquainted -with the merits of German graphic expression;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span> -for the lapses in the <cite>Britannica</cite> would -seem even too great to be accounted for on the -grounds of British chauvinism. And they are -too obvious to have been deliberate.</p> - -<p>Among the important German painters of -modern times who have failed to be given biographies -are Wilhelm Leibl, the greatest German -painter since Holbein; Charles Schuch, one of -Germany’s foremost still-life artists; Trübner, -who ranks directly in line with Leibl; Karl Spitzweg, -the forerunner and classic exponent of German -<i lang="fr">genre</i> painting as well as the leading artist -in that field; Heinrich von Zügel, one of the foremost -animal painters of modern times; and Ludwig -Knaus who, though inferior, is a painter of -world-wide fame. Furthermore, there are no -biographies of Franz Krüger, Müller, Von -Marées, Habermann, and Louis Corinth. When -we recall the extensive list of inferior British -painters who are not only given biographies but -praised, we wonder on just what grounds the -<cite>Britannica</cite> was advertised and sold as an “<em>international</em> -dictionary of biography.”</p> - -<p>It might be well to note here that Van Gogh, -the great Hollander, does not appear once in the -entire Encyclopædia: there is not so much as a -passing reference to him! Nor has Zorn or Hodler -a biography. And Sorolla draws just twenty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span> -lines in his biography, and Zuloaga less than half -a column.</p> - -<p>Despite, however, the curtailed and inferior -consideration given Continental art, it does not -suffer from prejudicial neglect nearly so much as -does American art. This is not wholly surprising -in view of the contempt in which England holds -the cultural achievements of this country—a contempt -which is constantly being encountered in -British critical journals. But in the case of an -encyclopædia whose stated aim is to review impartially -the world’s activities, this contempt -should be suppressed temporarily at least, especially -as it is from America that the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> is reaping its monetary harvest. -There is, though, no indication that England’s -contemptuous attitude toward our art has even -been diminished. Our artists are either disposed -of with cursory mention or ignored completely; -and whenever it is possible for England to claim -any credit for the accomplishments of our artists, -the opportunity is immediately grasped.</p> - -<p>It is true, of course, that the United States does -not rank æsthetically with certain of the older nations -of Europe, but, considering America’s youth, -she has contributed many important names to the -history of painting, and among her artists there -are many who greatly surpass the inconsequent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span> -English academicians who are accorded generous -treatment.</p> - -<p>The editors of the Encyclopædia may contend -that the work was compiled for England and that -therefore they were justified in placing emphasis -on a horde of obscure English painters and in neglecting -significant French and German artists. -But they can offer no such excuse in regard to -America. The recent Eleventh Edition of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> was printed with the -very definite purpose of selling in the United -States; and the fact that they have sold many -thousand copies of it here precludes any reason -why American artists should be neglected or disposed -of in a brief and perfunctory fashion. An -American desiring adequate information concerning -the painters or sculptors of his own country -will seek through the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> in -vain. If he is entirely ignorant of æsthetic conditions -in America and depends on the Encyclopædia -for his knowledge, he will be led to inaccurate -conclusions. The ideas of relative values -established in his mind will be the reverse of the -truth, for he cannot fail but be affected by the -meagre and indifferent biographies of his native -painters, as compared with the lengthy and meticulous -concern with which British painters are -regarded.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span></p> - -<p>And yet this is the encyclopædia which has been -foisted upon the American people by means of a -P. T. Barnum advertising campaign almost unprecedented -in book history. And this also is the -encyclopædia which, in that campaign, called -itself “a history of all nations, an international -dictionary of biography, an exhaustive gazetteer -of the world, a hand-book to all the arts”; and -which announced that “every artist or sculptor -of note of any period, and of any land is the subject -of an interesting biography.” This last -statement is true only in the case of Great Britain. -It is, as we have seen, not true of France or Germany; -and especially is it not true of America. -Not only are many American artists and sculptors -of note omitted entirely, but many of those who -have been awarded mention are the victims of -English insular prejudice.</p> - -<p>Looking up Benjamin West, who, by historians -and critics has always been regarded as an American -artist, we find him designated as an “English” -painter. The designation is indeed astonishing, -since not only does the world know him -as an American, but West himself thought that -he was an American. Perhaps the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, by some obscure process of logic, considers -nationality from the standpoint of one’s -sentimental adoption. This being the case,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span> -Richard Le Gallienne would be an “American” -poet. But when we turn to Le Gallienne’s biography -we discover that, after all, he is “English.” -Apparently the rule does not work with Englishmen. -It is true that West went to London and -lived there; but he was born in the United States, -gained a reputation for painting here, and did not -go to England until he was twenty-five. It is -noteworthy that West, the “English” painter, is -accorded considerable space.</p> - -<p>Whistler, who also chose England in preference -to America, is given nearly a page and a half with -not unfavorable criticism. We cannot refrain -from wondering what would have been Whistler’s -fate at the hands of the Encyclopædia’s editors -had he remained in his native country. Sargent, -surely a painter of considerable importance and -one who is regarded in many enlightened quarters -as a great artist, is dismissed with less than half a -column! Even this comparatively long biography -for an American painter may be accounted -for by the following comment: “Though of the -French school, and American by birth, it is as a -British artist that he won fame.” Again, Abbey -receives high praise and quite a long biography, -comparatively speaking. Once more we wonder -if this painter’s adoption of England as his home -does not account for his liberal treatment.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span> -Albert F. Bellows, too, gets fourteen lines, in -which it is noted that “he painted much in England.”</p> - -<p>Compare the following record with the amounts -of space accorded British second-rate painters: -William Chase, sixteen lines; Vedder, a third of -a column; de Forest Brush, fifteen lines; T. W. -Dewing, twelve lines; A. H. Wyant, ten lines; -A. P. Ryder, eight lines; Tryon, fifteen lines; -John W. Alexander, sixteen lines; Gari Melchers, -eighteen lines; Childe Hassam, fifteen lines; -Blashfield, ten lines; J. Francis Murphy, fifteen -lines; Blakelock, eight lines. Among these names -are painters of a high and important order—painters -who stand in the foremost rank of American -art, and who unquestionably are greater than -a score of English painters who receive very -special critical biographies, some of which extend -over columns. And yet—apparently for no other -discernible reason than that they are Americans—they -are given the briefest mention with no specific -criticism. Only the barest biographical details -are set down.</p> - -<p>But if many of the American painters who have -made our art history are dismissed peremptorily -in biographies which, I assure you, are not “interesting,” -and which obviously are far from adequate -or even fair when compared with the consideration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span> -given lesser English painters, what -answer have the editors of the <cite>Britannica</cite> to offer -their American customers when many of our noteworthy -and important artists are omitted altogether? -On what grounds is a biography of J. -Alden Weir omitted entirely? For what reason -does the name of Robert Henri not appear? -Henri is one of the very important figures in -modern American painting.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, inspection reveals the fact that -among those American “painters of note” who, so -far as biographical mention in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> is concerned, do not exist, are Mary -Cassatt, George Bellows, Twachtman, C. W. -Hawthorne, Glackens, Jerome Meyers, George -Luks, Sergeant Kendall, Paul Dougherty, Allen -Talcott, Thomas Doughty, Richard Miller and -Charles L. Elliott.</p> - -<p>I could add more American painters to the -list of those who are omitted and who are of equal -importance with certain British painters who are -included; but enough have been mentioned to -prove the gross inadequacy of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> as an educational record of American -art.</p> - -<p>Outside of certain glaring omissions, what we -read in the Encyclopædia concerning the painters -of France and Germany may be fair, from a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span> -purely impartial standard, if taken alone: in some -instances, I believe, judicial critics of these other -nations have performed the service. But when -these unprejudiced accounts are interspersed with -the patriotic and enthusiastic glorifications of -British art, the only conclusion which the uninformed -man can draw from the combination is -that the chief beauties of modern painting have -sprung from England—a conclusion which illy -accords both with the facts and with the judgment -of the world’s impartial critics. But in the -case of American art, not even the strictly impartial -treatment occasionally accorded French and -German painters is to be found, with the result -that, for the most part, our art suffers more than -that of any other nation when compared, in the -pages of the <cite>Britannica</cite>, with British art.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_VII">VII<br /> -<span class="smaller">MUSIC</span></h2> - -<p>There is one field of culture—namely, music—in -which Great Britain has played so small and -negligible a part that it would seem impossible, -even for the passionately patriotic editors of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, to find any basis on -which an impressive monument to England could -be erected. Great Britain, admittedly, possesses -but slight musical significance when compared -with other nations. The organisms of her environment, -the temper of her intellect, her very -intellectual fibre, are opposed to the creation of -musical composition.</p> - -<p>This art in England, save during the Elizabethan -era, has been largely a by-product. No -great musical genius has come out of Great Britain; -and in modern times she has not produced -even a great second-rate composer. So evident is -England’s deficiency in this field, that any one -insisting upon it runs the risk of being set down a -platitudinarian. Even British critics of the better -class have not been backward in admitting the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span> -musical poverty of their nation; and many good -histories of music have come out of England: -indeed, one of the very best encyclopædias on this -subject was written by Sir George Grove.</p> - -<p>To attempt to place England on an equal footing -with other nations in the realm of music is to -alter obvious facts. Name all the truly great -composers since 1700, and not one of them will -be an Englishman. In fact, it is possible to write -an extensive history of music from that date to -the present time without once referring to Great -Britain. England, as the world knows, is not a -musical nation. Her temperament is not suited -to subtle complexities of plastic harmonic expression. -Her modern composers are without importance; -and for every one of her foremost -musical creators there can be named a dozen from -other nations who are equally inspired, and yet -who hold no place in the world’s musical evolution -because of contemporary fellow-countrymen -who overshadow them.</p> - -<p>As I have said, it would seem impossible, even -for so narrowly provincial and chauvinistic a -work as the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, to find any -plausible basis for the glorification of English -musical genius. But where others fail to achieve -the impossible, the <cite>Britannica</cite> succeeds. In the -present instance, however, the task has been difficult,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span> -for there is a certain limit to the undeserved -praise which even a blatant partisan can confer -on English composers; and there is such a paucity -of conspicuous names in the British musical field -that an encyclopædia editor finds it difficult to -gather enough of them together to make an extensive -patriotic showing. He can, however, -omit or neglect truly significant names of other -nations while giving undue prominence to second- -and third-rate English composers.</p> - -<p>And this is exactly the method followed by the -editors of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. But the disproportionments -are so obvious, the omissions so glaring, and -the biographies and articles so distorted, both as -to space and comment, that almost any one with -a knowledge of music will be immediately struck -by their absurdity and injustice. Modern musical -culture, as set forth in this encyclopædia, is -more biased than any other branch of culture. In -this field the limits of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> insularity -would seem to have been reached.</p> - -<p>I have yet to see even a short history of modern -music which is not more informative and complete, -and from which a far better idea of musical -evolution could not be gained. And I know of -no recent book of composers, no matter how brief, -which does not give more comprehensive information -concerning musical writers than does that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span> -“supreme book of knowledge,” the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>. So deficient is it in its data, and so -many great and significant modern composers are -denied biographical mention in it, that one is led -to the conclusion that little or no effort was made -to bring it up-to-date.</p> - -<p>It would be impossible in this short chapter to -set down anywhere near all the inadequacies, -omissions and disproportions which inform the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> treatment of music. Therefore I -shall confine myself largely to modern music, -since this subject is of foremost, vital concern at -present; and I shall merely indicate the more glaring -instances of incompleteness and neglect. -Furthermore, I shall make only enough comparisons -between the way in which British music -is treated and the way in which the music of other -nations is treated, to indicate the partisanship -which underlies the outlook of this self-styled “international” -and “universal” reference work.</p> - -<p>Let us first regard the general article <cite>Music</cite>. -In that division of the article entitled, <cite>Recent -Music</cite>—that is, music during the last sixty or -seventy-five years—we find the following astonishing -division of space: recent German music receives -just eleven lines; recent French music, -thirty-eight lines, or less than half a column; recent -Italian music, nineteen lines; recent Russian<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span> -music, thirteen lines; and recent British music, -<em>nearly four columns, or two full pages</em>!</p> - -<p>Regard these figures a moment. That period -of German musical composition which embraced -such men as Humperdinck, Richard Strauss, -Karl Goldmark, Hugo Wolf, Gustav Mahler, -Bruch, Reinecke, and von Bülow, is allotted only -eleven lines, and only two of the above names are -even mentioned! And yet modern British music, -which is of vastly lesser importance, is given -<em>thirty-five times</em> as much space as modern German -music, and <em>ten times</em> as much space as modern -French music! In these figures we have an example -of prejudice and discrimination which it -would be hard to match in any other book or -music in existence. It is unnecessary to criticise -such bias: the figures themselves are more eloquently -condemning than any comment could -possibly be. And it is to this article on recent -music, with its almost unbelievable distortions of -relative importance, that thousands of Americans -will apply for information. Furthermore, in the -article <cite>Opera</cite> there is no discussion of modern -realistic developments, and the names of Puccini -and Charpentier are not even included!</p> - -<p>In the biographies of English composers is to be -encountered the same sort of prejudice and exaggeration. -Sterndale Bennett, the inferior British<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span> -Mendelssohn, is given nearly a column, and in the -criticism of him we read: “The principal charm -of Bennett’s compositions (not to mention his absolute -mastery of the musical form) consists in -the tenderness of their conception, rising occasionally -to sweetest musical intensity.” Turning -from Bennett, the absolute master of form, to -William Thomas Best, the English organist, we -find nearly a half-column biography of fulsome -praise, in which Best is written down as an “all-round -musician.” Henry Bishop receives two-thirds -of a column. “His melodies are clear, -flowing, appropriate and often charming; and his -harmony is always pure, simple and sweet.”</p> - -<p>Alfred Cellier is accorded nearly half a column, -in which we are told that his music was “invariably -distinguished by elegance and refinement.” -Frederick Cowen also wrote music which was “refined”; -and in his three-fourths-of-a-column -biography it is stated that “he succeeds wonderfully -in finding graceful expression for the poetical -idea.” John Field infused “elegance” into -his music. His biography is over half a column -in length, and we learn that his nocturnes “remain -all but unrivaled for their tenderness and dreaminess -of conception, combined with a continuous -flow of beautiful melody.”</p> - -<p>Edward Elgar receives no less than two-thirds<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span> -of a column, in which are such phrases as “fine -work,” “important compositions,” and “stirring -melody.” Furthermore, his first orchestral symphony -was “a work of marked power and beauty, -developing the symphonic form with the originality -of a real master of his art.” The world outside -of England will be somewhat astonished to -know that Elgar took part in the development of -the symphonic form and that he was a real master -of music. John Hatton, in a two-thirds-of-a-column -biography, is praised, but not without -reservation. He might, says the article, have -gained a place of higher distinction among English -composers “had it not been for his irresistible -animal spirits and a want of artistic reverence.” -He was, no doubt, without the “elegance” and -“refinement” which seem to characterize so many -English composers.</p> - -<p>But Charles Parry evidently had no shortcomings -to detract from his colossal and heaven-kissing -genius. He is given a biography of -nearly a column, and it is packed with praise. In -some of his compositions to sacred words “are -revealed the highest qualities of music.” He has -“skill in piling up climax after climax, and command -of every choral resource.” But this is not -all. In some of his works “he shows himself -master of the orchestra”; and his “exquisite”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span> -chamber music and part-songs “maintain the high -standard of his greater works.” Not even here -does his genius expire. <cite>Agamemnon</cite> “is among -the most impressive compositions of the kind.” -Furthermore, <cite>The Frogs</cite> is a “striking example of -humor in music.” All this would seem to be -enough glory for any man, but Parry has not only -piled Pelion on Ossa but has scaled Olympus. -Outside his creative music, “his work for music -was of the greatest importance”; his <cite>Art of Music</cite> -is a “splendid monument of musical literature.” ... -There is even more of this kind of eulogy—too -much of it to quote here; but, once you read -it, you cannot help feeling that the famous triumvirate, -Brahms, Bach and Beethoven, has now -become the quartet, Brahms, Bach, Beethoven, -and Parry.</p> - -<p>The vein of William Shield’s melody “was -conceived in the purest and most delicate taste”; -and his biography is half a column in length. -Goring Thomas is accorded two-thirds of a -column; and it is stated that not only does his -music reveal “a great talent for dramatic composition -and a real gift of refined and beautiful -melody,” but that he was “personally the most -admirable of men.” Michael Costa, on the other -hand, was evidently not personally admirable, -for in his half-column biography we read: “He<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span> -was the great conductor of his day, but both his -musical and his human sympathies were somewhat -limited.” (Costa was a Spaniard by birth.) -Samuel Wesley, Jr.’s, anthems are “masterly in -design, fine in inspiration and expression, and -noble in character.” His biography runs to half -a column. Even Wesley, Sr., has a third of a -column biography.</p> - -<p>The most amazing biography from the standpoint -of length, however, is that of Sir Arthur -Sullivan. It runs to three and a third columns -(being much longer than Haydn’s!) and is full -of high praise of a narrowly provincial character. -Thomas Attwood receives a half-column biography; -Balfe, the composer of <cite>The Bohemian -Girl</cite>, receives nearly a column; Julius Benedict, -two-thirds of a column; William Jackson, nearly -two-thirds of a column; Mackenzie, over three-fourths -of a column; John Stainer, two-thirds of -a column; Charles Stanford, nearly a column; -Macfarren, over half a column; Henry Hugo -Pierson, half a column; John Hullah, considerably -over half a column; William Crotch, over -half a column; Joseph Barnby, nearly half a -column; John Braham, two-thirds of a column. -And many others of no greater importance receive -liberal biographies—for instance, Frederic Clay, -John Barnett, George Elvey, John Goss, MacCunn,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span> -James Turle, and William Vincent Wallace.</p> - -<p>Bearing all this in mind, we will now glance at -the biographies of modern German composers in -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. Johann Strauss, -perhaps the greatest of all waltz writers, is given -only half a column, less space than that given to -John Field or William Crotch; and the only criticism -of his music is contained in the sentence: -“In Paris he associated himself with Musard, -whose quadrilles became not much less popular -than his own waltzes; but his greatest successes -were achieved in London.” Hummel, the most -brilliant virtuoso of his day, whose concertos and -masses are still popular, receives less space than -John Hatton.</p> - -<p>But what of Brahms, one of the three great -composers of the world? Incredible as it may -seem, he is given a biography even shorter than -that of Sir Arthur Sullivan! And Robert Franz, -perhaps the greatest lyrical writer since Schubert, -receives considerably less space than William -Jackson. Richard Strauss is allotted only a -column and two-thirds, about equal space with -Charles Burney, the musical historian, and William -Byrd; and in it we are given little idea of his -greatness. In fact, the critic definitely says that -it remains to be seen for what Strauss’s name will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span> -live! When one thinks of the tremendous influence -which Strauss has had, and of the way in -which he has altered the musical conceptions of -the world, one can only wonder, astounded, why, -in an encyclopædia as lengthy as the <cite>Britannica</cite>, -he should be dismissed with so inadequate and -inept a biography.</p> - -<p>After such injustice in the case of Strauss, it -does not astonish one to find that Max Bruch, one -of the most noteworthy figures in modern German -music, and Reinecke, an important composer and -long a professor at the Leipsic Conservatory, -should receive only thirty lines each. But the -neglect of Strauss hardly prepared us for the brief -and incomplete record which passes for Humperdinck’s -biography—a biography shorter than that -of Cramer, William Hawes, Henry Lazarus, the -English clarinettist, and Henry Smart!</p> - -<p>Mendelssohn, the great English idol, receives a -biography out of all proportion to his importance—a -biography twice as long as that of Brahms, -and considerably longer than either Schumann’s -or Schubert’s! And it is full of effulgent praise -and more than intimates that Mendelssohn’s -counterpoint was like Bach’s, that his sonata-form -resembled Beethoven’s, and that he invented a -new style no less original than Schubert’s! Remembering -the parochial criterion by which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span> -Encyclopædia’s editors judge art, we may perhaps -account for this amazing partiality to Mendelssohn -by the following ludicrous quotation -from his biography: “His earnestness as a Christian -needs no stronger testimony than that afforded -by his own delineation of the character of -St. Paul; but it is not too much to say that his -heart and life were pure as those of a little child.”</p> - -<p>Although Hugo Wolf’s biography is a column -and a half in length, Konradin Kreutzer gets only -eighteen lines; Nicolai, who wrote <cite>The Merry -Wives of Windsor</cite>, only ten lines; Suppé, only -fifteen; Nessler, only twelve; Franz Abt, only -ten; Henselt, only twenty-six; Heller, only -twenty-two; Lortzing, only twenty; and Thalberg, -only twenty-eight. In order to realize how -much prejudice, either conscious or unconscious, -entered into these biographies, compare the -amounts of space with those given to the English -composers above mentioned. Even Raff receives -a shorter biography than Mackenzie; and von -Bülow’s and Goldmark’s biographies are briefer -than Cowen’s.</p> - -<p>But where the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> shows -its utter inadequacy as a guide to modern music is -in the long list of omission. For instance, there -is no biography of Marschner, whose <cite>Hans Heiling</cite> -still survives in Germany; of Friedrich Silcher,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[134]</a></span> -who wrote most of the famous German -“folk-songs”; of Gustav Mahler, one of the truly -important symphonists of modern times; of the -Scharwenka brothers; or of Georg Alfred Schumann—all -sufficiently important to have a place -in an encyclopædia like the <cite>Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>But—what is even more inexcusable—Max -Reger, one of the most famous German composers -of the day, has no biography. Nor has Eugen -d’Albert, renowned for both his chamber music -and operas. (D’Albert repudiated his English -antecedents and settled in Germany.) Kreisler -also is omitted, although Kubelik, five years -Kreisler’s junior, draws a biography. In view -of the obvious contempt which the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> has for America, it may be noted in -this connection that Kreisler’s first great success -was achieved in America, whereas Kubelik made -his success in London before coming to this country.</p> - -<p>Among the German and Austrian composers -who are without biographical mention in the -<cite>Britannica</cite>, are several of the most significant -musical creators of modern times—men who are -world figures and whose music is known on every -concert stage in the civilized world. On what -possible grounds are Mahler, Reger and Eugen -d’Albert denied biographies in an encyclopædia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[135]</a></span> -which dares advertise itself as a “complete -library of knowledge” and as an “international -dictionary of biography”? And how is it possible -for one to get any adequate idea of the -wealth or importance of modern German music -from so biased and incomplete a source? Would -the Encyclopædia’s editors dare state that such a -subject would not appeal to “intelligent” persons? -And how will the Encyclopædia’s editors -explain away the omission of Hanslick, the most -influential musical critic that ever lived, when -liberal biographies are given to several English -critics?</p> - -<p>Despite the incomplete and unjust treatment -accorded German and Austrian music in the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, modern French music -receives scarcely better consideration. Chopin is -given space only equal to that of Purcell. Berlioz -and Gounod, who are allotted longer biographies -than any other modern French composers, -receive, nevertheless, considerably less -space than Sir Arthur Sullivan. Saint-Saëns and -Debussy receive less than half the space given to -Sullivan, while Auber and César Franck are given -only about equal space with Samuel Arnold, -Balfe, Sterndale Bennett, and Charles Stanford! -Massenet has less space than William Thomas -Best or Joseph Barnby, and three-fourths of it is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[136]</a></span> -taken up with a list of his works. The remainder -of the biographies are proportionately brief. -There is not one of them of such length that you -cannot find several longer biographies of much -less important English composers.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, one finds unexplainable errors -and omissions in them. For instance, although -Ernest Reyer died January 15, 1909, there is no -mention of it in his biography; but there is, however, -the statement that his <cite>Quarante Ans de -Musique</cite> “was published in 1909.” This careless -oversight in not noting Reyer’s death while -at the same time recording a still later biographical -fact is without any excuse, especially as the -death of Dudley Buck, who died much later than -Reyer, is included. Furthermore, the biography -omits stating that Reyer became Inspector General -of the Paris Conservatoire in 1908. Nor is -his full name given, nor the fact recorded that -his correct name was Rey.</p> - -<p>Again, although Théodore Dubois relinquished -his Directorship of the Conservatory in 1905, his -biography in the <cite>Britannica</cite> merely mentions that -he began his Directorship in 1896, showing that -apparently no effort was made to complete the -material. Still again, although Fauré was made -Director of the Conservatory in 1905, the fact is -not set down in his biography. And once more,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[137]</a></span> -although d’Indy visited America in 1905 and -conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the -fact is omitted from his biography.... These -are only a few of the many indications to be found -throughout the <cite>Britannica</cite> that this encyclopædia -is untrustworthy and that its editors have not, as -they claim, taken pains to bring it up to date.</p> - -<p>Among the important French composers who -should have biographies, but who are omitted -from the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, are Guilmant, -perhaps the greatest modern organist and an important -classico-modern composer; Charpentier, -who with Puccini, stands at the head of the modern -realistic opera, and whose <cite>Louise</cite> is to-day in -every standard operatic repertoire; and Ravel, the -elaborate harmonist of the moderns.</p> - -<p>Even greater inadequacy—an inadequacy -which could not be reconciled with an encyclopædia -one-fourth the size of the <cite>Britannica</cite>—exists -in the treatment of modern Russian music. -So brief, so inept, so negligent is the material on -this subject that, as a reference book, the <cite>Britannica</cite> -is practically worthless. The most charitable -way of explaining this woeful deficiency is -to attribute it to wanton carelessness. Anton -Rubinstein, for instance, is given a biography -about equal with Balfe and Charles Stanford; -while his brother Nikolaus, one of the greatest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[138]</a></span> -pianists and music teachers of his day, and the -founder of the Conservatorium of Music at Moscow, -has no biography whatever! Glinka, one -of the greatest of Russian composers and the -founder of a new school of music, is dismissed -with a biography no longer than those of John -Braham, the English singer, John Hatton, the -Liverpool genius with the “irresistible animal -spirits,” and William Jackson; and shorter than -that of Charles Dibdin, the British song-writer!</p> - -<p>Tschaikowsky receives less than two columns, -a little over half the space given to Sullivan. -The criticism of his work is brief and inadequate, -and in it there is no mention of his liberal use of -folk-songs which form the basis of so many of -his important compositions, such as the second -movement of his Fourth and the first movement -of his First Symphonies. Borodin, another of -the important musical leaders of modern Russia, -has a biography which is no longer than that of -Frederic Clay, the English light-opera writer -and whist expert; and which is considerably -shorter than the biography of Alfred Cellier. -Balakirev, the leader of the “New Russian” -school, has even a shorter biography, shorter in -fact than the biography of Henry Hugo Pierson, -the weak English oratorio writer.</p> - -<p>The biography of Moussorgsky—a composer<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[139]</a></span> -whose importance needs no indication here—is -only fifteen lines in length, shorter even than William -Hawes’s, Henry Lazarus’s, George Elvey’s, -or Henry Smart’s! And yet Moussorgsky was -“one of the finest creative composers in the ranks -of the modern Russian school.” Rimsky-Korsakov, -another of the famous modern Russians, -whose work has long been familiar both in England -and America, draws less space than Michael -Costa, the English conductor of Spanish origin, -or than Joseph Barnby, the English composer-conductor -of <cite>Sweet and Low</cite> fame.</p> - -<p>Glazunov is given a biography only equal in -length to that of John Goss, the unimportant -English writer of church music. And although -the biography tells us that he became Professor of -the St. Petersburg Conservatory in 1900, it fails -to mention that he was made Director in 1908—a -bit of inexcusable carelessness which, though -of no great importance, reveals the slip-shod incompleteness -of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> Eleventh Edition. -Furthermore, many important works of -Glazunov are not noted at all.</p> - -<p>Here ends the <cite>Encyclopædia’s</cite> record of modern -Russian composers! César Cui, one of the very -important modern Russians, has no biography -whatever in this great English cultural work, although -we find liberal accounts of such British<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[140]</a></span> -composers as Turle, Walmisley, Potter, Richards -(whose one bid to fame is having written <cite>God -Bless the Prince of Wales</cite>) and George Alexander -Lee, the song-writer whose great popular success -was <cite>Come Where the Aspens Quiver</cite>. Nor will -you find any biographical information of Arensky, -another of the leading Russian composers of the -new school; nor of Taneiev or Grechaninov—both -of whom have acquired national and international -fame. Even Scriabine, a significant Russian composer -who has exploited new theories of scales -and harmonies of far-reaching influence, is not considered -of sufficient importance to be given a place -(along with insignificant Englishmen like Lacy -and Smart) in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>The most astonishing omission, however, is that -of Rachmaninov. Next to omitting César Cui, -the complete ignoring of so important and universally -accepted a composer as Rachmaninov, -whose symphonic poem, <cite>The Island of the Dead</cite>, -is one of the greatest Russian works since Tschaikowsky, -is the most indefensible of all. On what -possible grounds can the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -defend its extravagant claims to completeness -when the name of so significant and well-known -a composer as Rachmaninov does not appear in -the entire twenty-nine volumes?</p> - -<p>In the list of the important modern Italian<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[141]</a></span> -musicians included in the <cite>Britannica</cite> one will seek -in vain for information of Busoni, who has not -only written much fine instrumental music, but -who is held by many to be the greatest living virtuoso -of the piano; or of Wolf-Ferrari, one of the -important leaders of the new Italian school. And -though Tosti, whose name is also omitted, is of -slight significance, he is of far greater popular -importance than several English song-writers who -are accorded biographies.</p> - -<p>Even Puccini, who has revolutionized the modern -opera and who stands at the head of living -operatic composers, is given only eleven lines of -biography, less space than is given to George Alexander -Lee or John Barnett, and only equal space -with Lacy, the Irish actor with musical inclinations, -and Walmisley, the anthem writer and -organist at Trinity College. It is needless to say -that no biography of eleven lines, even if written -in shorthand, would be adequate as a source of information -for such a composer as Puccini. The -fact that he visited America in 1907 is not even -mentioned, and although at that time he selected -his theme for <cite>The Girl of the Golden West</cite> and -began work on it in 1908, you will have to go to -some other work more “supreme” than the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> for this knowledge.</p> - -<p>Leoncavallo’s biography is of the same brevity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[142]</a></span> -as Puccini’s; and the last work of his that is mentioned -is dated 1904. His opera, <cite>Songe d’Une -Nuit d’Été</cite>, his symphonic poem, <cite>Serafita</cite>, and his -ballet, <cite>La Vita d’Una Marionetta</cite>—though all -completed before 1908—are not recorded in this -revised and up-to-date library of culture. Mascagni, -apparently, is something of a favorite with -the editors of the <cite>Britannica</cite>, for his biography -runs to twenty-three lines, nearly as long as that -of the English operatic composer, William Vincent -Wallace, and of Alfred Cellier, the infra-Sullivan. -But even with this great partiality -shown him there is no record of his return from -America to Italy in 1903 or of the honor of Commander -of the Crown of Italy which was conferred -upon him.</p> - -<p>Of important Northern composers there are not -many, but the <cite>Britannica</cite> has succeeded in minimizing -even their small importance. Gade has -a biography only as long as Pierson’s; and -Kjerulf, who did so much for Norwegian music, is -given less space than William Hawes, with no -critical indication of his importance. Even Grieg -receives but a little more space than Charles Stanford -or Sterndale Bennett! Nordraak, who was -Grieg’s chief co-worker in the development of a -national school of music, has no biography whatever. -Nor has Sinding, whose fine orchestral and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[143]</a></span> -chamber music is heard everywhere. Not even -Sibelius, whose very notable compositions brought -Finland into musical prominence, is considered -worthy of biographical mention.</p> - -<p>But the most astonishing omission is that of -Buxtehude, one of the great and important figures -in the early development of music. Not only was -he the greatest organist of his age, but he was a -great teacher as well. He made Lübeck famous -for its music, and established the “Abendmusiken” -which Bach walked fifty miles to hear. To the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> editor, however, he is of less importance -than Henry Smart, the English organist!</p> - -<p>In Dvorák’s biography we learn that English -sympathy was entirely won by the <cite>Stabat Mater</cite>; -but no special mention is made of his famous -E-minor (American) Symphony. Smetana, the -first great Bohemian musician, receives less space -than Henry Bishop, who is remembered principally -as the composer of <cite>Home, Sweet Home</cite>.</p> - -<p>But when we pass over into Poland we find inadequacy -and omissions of even graver character. -Moszkowski receives just eight lines of biography, -the same amount that is given to <cite>God-Bless-the-Prince-of-Wales</cite> -Richards. Paderewski is accorded -equal space with the English pianist, Cipriani -Potter; and no mention is made of his famous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[144]</a></span> -$10,000 fund for the best American compositions. -This is a characteristic omission, however, for, as -I have pointed out before, a composer’s activities -in America are apparently considered too trivial to -mention, whereas, if it is at all possible to connect -England, even in a remote and far-fetched way, -with the genius of the world, it is done. Josef -Hofmann, the other noted Polish pianist, is too -insignificant to be given even passing mention in -the <cite>Britannica</cite>. But such an inclusion could -hardly be expected of a reference work which -contains no biography of Leschetizky, the greatest -and most famous piano teacher the world has ever -known.</p> - -<p>We come now to the most prejudiced and inexcusably -inadequate musical section in the whole -<cite>Britannica</cite>—namely, to American composers. -Again we find that narrow patronage, that provincial -condescension and that contemptuous neglect -which so conspicuously characterize the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica’s</cite> treatment of all American institutions -and culture. We have already beheld -how this neglect and contempt have worked -against our painters, our novelists, our poets and -our dramatists; we have seen what rank injustice -has been dealt our artists and writers; we have -reviewed the record of omissions contained in -this Encyclopædia’s account of our intellectual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[145]</a></span> -activities. But in no other instance has British -scorn allowed itself so extreme and indefensible -an expression as in the peremptory manner in -which our musical composers are dismissed. The -negligence with which American musical compositions -and composers are reviewed is greater -than in the case of any other nation.</p> - -<p>As I have said before, if the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> had been compiled to sell only in -suburban England, we would have no complaint -against the petty contempt shown our artists; but -when an encyclopædia is put together largely for -the purpose of American distribution, the sweeping -neglect of our native creative effort resolves -itself into an insult which every American should -hotly resent. And especially should such neglect -be resented when the advertising campaign with -which the <cite>Britannica</cite> was foisted upon the public -claimed for that work an exalted supremacy as a -library of international education, and definitely -stated that it contained an adequate discussion of -every subject which would appeal to intelligent -persons. As I write this the <cite>Britannica</cite> advertises -itself as containing “an exhaustive account -of all human achievement.” But I think I have -shown with pretty fair conclusiveness that it does -not contain anywhere near an exhaustive account -of American achievement; and yet I doubt if even<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[146]</a></span> -an Englishman would deny that we were “human.”</p> - -<p>Let us see how “exhaustive” the <cite>Britannica</cite> is -in its record of American musical achievement. -To begin with, there are just thirty-seven lines in -the article on American composers; and for our -other information we must depend on the biographies. -But what do we find? Dudley Buck -is given an incomplete biography of fourteen lines; -and MacDowell draws thirty lines of inadequate -data. Gottschalk, the most celebrated of American -piano virtuosi, who toured Europe with great -success and wrote much music which survives even -to-day, is surely of enough historical importance -to be given a biography; but his name does not so -much as appear in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. John Knowles -Paine has no biography; nor has William Mason; -nor Arthur Foote; nor Chadwick; nor Edgar Stillman -Kelly; nor Ethelbert Nevin; nor Charles -Loeffler; nor Mrs. Beach; nor Henry K. Hadley; -nor Cadman; nor Horatio Parker; nor Frederick -Converse.</p> - -<p>To be sure, these composers do not rank among -the great world figures; but they do stand for the -highest achievement in American music, and it is -quite probable that many “intelligent” Americans -would be interested in knowing about them. In -fact, from the standpoint of intelligent interest,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[147]</a></span> -they are of far more importance than many lesser -English composers who are given biographies. -And although Sousa has had the greatest popular -success of any composer since Johann Strauss, you -will hunt the <cite>Britannica</cite> through in vain for even -so much as a mention of him. And while I do not -demand the inclusion of Victor Herbert, nevertheless -if Alfred Cellier is given a place, Herbert, -who is Cellier’s superior in the same field, should -not be discriminated against simply because he is -not an Englishman.</p> - -<p>It will be seen that there is practically no record -whatever of the makers of American music; and -while, to the world at large, our musical accomplishments -may not be of vital importance, yet to -Americans themselves—even “intelligent” Americans -(if the English will admit that such an -adjective may occasionally be applied to us)—they -are not only of importance but of significance. -It is not as if second-rate and greatly inferior -composers of Great Britain were omitted -also; but when Ethelbert Nevin is given no biography -while many lesser British composers are not -only given biographies but praised as well, Americans -have a complaint which the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> exploiters -(who chummily advertise themselves as -“we Americans”) will find it difficult to meet.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[148]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_VIII">VIII<br /> -<span class="smaller">SCIENCE</span></h2> - -<p>In the field of medicine and biology the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> reveals so narrow and obvious -a partisanship that there has already been no little -resentment on the part of American scientists. -This country is surpassed by none in biological -chemistry; and our fame in surgery and medical -experimentation is world-wide. Among the -ranks of our scientists stand men of such great -importance and high achievement that no adequate -history of biology or medicine could be -written without giving vital consideration to -them. Yet the <cite>Britannica</cite> fails almost completely -in revealing their significance. Many of -our great experimenters—men who have made -important original contributions to science and -who have pushed forward the boundaries of human -knowledge—receive no mention whatever; -and many of our surgeons and physicians whose -researches have marked epochs in the history of -medicine meet with a similar fate. On the other -hand you will find scores of biographies of comparatively<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[149]</a></span> -little known and unimportant English -scientists, some of whom have contributed nothing -to medical and biological advancement.</p> - -<p>It is not my intention to go into any great detail -in this matter. I shall not attempt to make -a complete list of the glaring omissions of our -scientists or to set down anywhere near all of the -lesser British scientists who are discussed liberally -and <i lang="it">con amore</i> in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Such a record -were unnecessary. But I shall indicate a sufficient -number of discrepancies between the treatment -of American scientists and the treatment of -English scientists, to reveal the utter inadequacy -of the <cite>Britannica</cite> as a guide to the history and -development of our science. If America did not -stand so high in this field the Encyclopædia’s editors -would have some basis on which to explain -away their wanton discrimination against our -scientific activities. But when, as I say, America -stands foremost among the nations of the world -in biological chemistry and also holds high rank -in surgery and medicine, there can be no excuse -for such wilful neglect, especially as minor British -scientists are accorded liberal space and generous -consideration.</p> - -<p>First we shall set down those three earlier pathfinders -in American medicine whose names do not -so much as appear in the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> Index:—John<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[150]</a></span> -Morgan, who in 1765, published his <cite>Discourse -Upon the Institution of Medical Schools -in America</cite>, thus becoming the father of medical -education in the United States; William Shippen, -Jr., who aided John Morgan in founding our first -medical school, the medical department of the -University of Pennsylvania, and gave the first -public lectures in obstetrics in this country, and -who may be regarded as the father of American -obstetrics; and Thomas Cadwalader, the first -Philadelphian (at this time Philadelphia was the -medical center of America) to teach anatomy by -dissections, and the author of one of the best -pamphlets on lead poisoning.</p> - -<p>Among the somewhat later important American -medical scientists who are denied any mention in -the <cite>Britannica</cite> are; John Conrad Otto, the first -who described hemophilia (an abnormal tendency -to bleeding); James Jackson, author of one of -the first accounts of alcoholic neuritis; James Jackson, -Jr., who left his mark in physical diagnosis; -Elisha North, who as early as 1811 advocated -the use of the clinical thermometer in his original -description of cerebrospinal meningitis (the first -book on the subject); John Ware, who wrote one -of the chief accounts of delirium tremens; Jacob -Bigelow, one of the very great names in American -medicine, whose essay, <cite>On Self-Limited Diseases</cite>,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[151]</a></span> -according to Holmes, “did more than any other -work or essay in our language to rescue the practice -of medicine from the slavery to the drugging -system which was a part of the inheritance of the -profession”; W. W. Gerhard, who distinguished -between typhoid and typhus; Daniel Drake, -known as the greatest physician of the West, who -as the result of thirty years of labor wrote the -masterpiece, <cite>Diseases of the Interior Valley of -North America</cite>; Caspar Wistar, who wrote the -first American treatise on anatomy; and William -Edmonds Horner, who discovered the tensor tarsi -muscle, known as Horner’s muscle.... Not -only are these men not accorded biographies in -the “universal” and “complete” <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, but their names do not appear!</p> - -<p>The father of American surgery was Philip -Syng Physick, who invented the tonsillotome and -introduced various surgical operations; but you -must look elsewhere than in the <cite>Britannica</cite> for so -much as a mention of him. And although the history -of American surgery is especially glorious -and includes such great names as: the Warrens; -Wright Post; J. C. Nott, who excised the coccyx -and was the first who suggested the mosquito -theory of yellow fever; Henry J. Bigelow, the -first to describe the Y-ligament; Samuel David -Gross, one of the chief surgeons of the nineteenth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[152]</a></span> -century; Nicholas Senn, one of the masters of -modern surgery; Harvey Cushing, perhaps the -greatest brain surgeon in the world to-day; -George Crile, whose revolutionary work in surgical -shock was made long before the <cite>Britannica</cite> -went to press; and William S. Halsted, among the -greatest surgeons of the world,—as I have said, although -America has produced these important -men, the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> ignores the fact -entirely, and does not so much as record one of -their names!</p> - -<p>Were all the rest of American medical scientists -given liberal consideration in the <cite>Britannica</cite>, it -would not compensate for the above omissions. -But these omissions are by no means all: they are -merely the beginning. The chief names in modern -operative gynecology are American. But of -the nine men who are the leaders in this field, only -one (Emmet) has a biography, and only one -(McDowell) receives casual mention. Marion -Sims who invented his speculum and introduced -the operation for vesicovaginal fistula, Nathan -Bozeman, J. C. Nott (previously mentioned), -Theodore Gaillard Thomas, Robert Battey, E. -C. Dudley, and Howard A. Kelly do not exist for -the <cite>Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, of the four chief pioneers in anæsthesia—the -practical discovery and use of which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[153]</a></span> -was an American achievement—only two are -mentioned. The other two—C. W. Long, of -Georgia, and the chemist, Charles T. Jackson—are -apparently unknown to the British editors of -this encyclopædia. And although in the history -of pediatrics there is no more memorable name -than that of Joseph O’Dwyer, of Ohio, whose -work in intubation has saved countless numbers -of infants, you will fail to find any reference to -him in this “unbiased” English reference work.</p> - -<p>One must not imagine that even here ends the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> almost unbelievable injustice to -American scientists. John J. Abel is not mentioned -either, yet Professor Abel is among the -greatest pharmacologists of the world. His researches -in animal tissues and fluids have definitely -set forward the science of medicine; and it was -Abel who, besides his great work with the artificial -kidney, first discovered the uses of epinephrin. -R. G. Harrison, one of the greatest biologists of -history, whose researches in the growth of tissue -were epoch-making, and on whose investigations -other scientists also have made international reputations, -is omitted entirely from the <cite>Britannica</cite>. -S. J. Meltzer, the physiologist, who has been the -head of the department of physiology and pharmacology -at Rockefeller Institute since 1906, is -not in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. T. H. Morgan, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[154]</a></span> -zoölogist, whose many books on the subject have -long been standard works, is without a biography. -E. B. Wilson, one of the great pathfinders in -zoölogy and a man who stands in the front rank -of that science, is also without a biography. And -Abraham Jacobi, who is the father of pediatrics in -America, is not mentioned.</p> - -<p>The list of wanton omissions is not yet complete! -C. S. Minot, the great American embryologist, -is ignored. Theobald Smith, the pathologist, -is also thought unworthy of note. And -among those renowned American scientists who, -though mentioned, failed to impress the Encyclopædia’s -English editor sufficiently to be given -biographies are: John Kerasley Mitchell, who was -the first to describe certain neurological conditions, -and was one of the advocates of the germ theory -of disease before bacteriology; William Beaumont, -the first to study digestion <i lang="la">in situ</i>; Jacques -Loeb, whose works on heliotropism, morphology, -psychology, etc., have placed him among the -world’s foremost imaginative researchers; H. S. -Jennings, another great American biologist; W. -H. Welch, one of the greatest of modern pathologists -and bacteriologists; and Simon Flexner, -whose work is too well known to the world to -need any description here. These men unquestionably -deserve biographies in any encyclopædia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[155]</a></span> -which makes even a slight pretence of completeness, -and to have omitted them from the -<cite>Britannica</cite> was an indefensible oversight—or -worse.</p> - -<p>The editors of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -cannot explain away these amazing omissions on -the ground that the men mentioned are not of -sufficient importance to have come within the -range of their consideration; for, when we look -down the list of <em>British</em> medical scientists who are -given biographies, we can find at least a score of -far less important ones. For instance, Elizabeth -G. Anderson, whose claim to glory lies in her advocacy -of admitting women into the medical profession, -is given considerably over half a column. -Gilbert Blane, the introducer of lime-juice into -the English navy, also has a biography. So has -Richard Brocklesby, an eighteenth-century army -physician; and Andrew Clark, a fashionable London -practitioner; and T. B. Curling; and John -Elliotson, the English mesmerist; and Joseph -Fayrer, known chiefly for his studies in the poisonous -snakes of India; and J. C. Forster; and James -Clark, an army surgeon and physician in ordinary -to Queen Victoria; and P. G. Hewett, another -surgeon to Queen Victoria; and many others of -no more prominence or importance.</p> - -<p>In order to realize the astounding lengths of injustice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[156]</a></span> -to which the <cite>Britannica</cite> has gone in its -petty neglect of America, compare these English -names which are given detailed biographical consideration, -with the American names which are -left out. The editors of this encyclopædia must -either plead guilty to the most flagrant kind of -prejudicial discrimination against this country, or -else confess to an abysmal ignorance of the history -and achievements of modern science.</p> - -<p>It might be well to note here that Luther Burbank’s -name is mentioned only once in the <cite>Britannica</cite>, -under <cite>Santa Rosa</cite>, the comment being that -Santa Rosa was his home. Not to have given -Burbank a biography containing an account of his -important work is nothing short of preposterous. -Is it possible that Americans are not supposed to -be interested in this great scientist? And are we -to assume that Marianne North, the English naturalist -and flower painter—who is given a detailed -biography—is of more importance than -Burbank? The list of <em>English</em> naturalists and -botanists who receive biographies in the <cite>Britannica</cite> -includes such names as William Aiton, Charles -Alston, James Anderson, W. J. Broderip, and -Robert Fortune; and yet there is no biography or -even discussion of Luther Burbank, the American!</p> - -<p>Thus far in this chapter I have called attention<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[157]</a></span> -only to the neglect of American scientists. It -must not be implied, however, that America alone -suffers from the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> insular prejudice. -No nation, save England, is treated with that -justice and comprehensiveness upon which the -Encyclopædia’s advertising has so constantly insisted. -For instance, although Jonathan Hutchinson, -the English authority on syphilis, receives -(and rightly so) nearly half a column biography, -Ehrlich, the world’s truly great figure in that -field, is not considered of sufficient importance -to be given biographical mention. It is true that -Ehrlich’s salvarsan did not become known until -1910, but he had done much immortal work before -then. Even Metchnikoff, surely one of the -world’s greatest modern scientists, has no biography! -And although British biologists of even -minor importance receive biographical consideration, -Lyonet, the Hollander, who did the first -structural work after Swammerdam, is without a -biography.</p> - -<p>Nor are there biographies of Franz Leydig, -through whose extensive investigations all structural -studies upon insects assumed a new aspect; -Rudolph Leuckart, another conspicuous figure in -zoölogical progress; Meckel, who stands at the -beginning of the school of comparative anatomy -in Germany; Rathke, who made a significant advance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[158]</a></span> -in comparative anatomy; Ramón y Cajal, -whose histological research is of world-wide renown; -Kowalevsky, whose work in embryology -had enormous influence on all subsequent investigations; -Wilhelm His, whose embryological investigations, -especially in the development of the -nervous system and the origin of nerve fibres, are -of very marked importance; Dujardin, the discoverer -of sarcode; Lacaze-Duthiers, one of -France’s foremost zoölogical researchers; and -Pouchet, who created a sensation with his experimentations -in spontaneous generation.</p> - -<p>Even suppose the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editor should -argue that the foregoing biologists are not of the -very highest significance and therefore are not -deserving of separate biographies, how then can -he explain the fact that such <em>British</em> biologists as -Alfred Newton, William Yarrell, John G. Wood, -G. J. Allman, F. T. Buckland, and T. S. Cobbold, -are given individual biographies with a detailed -discussion of their work? What becomes of that -universality of outlook on which he so prides himself? -Or does he consider Great Britain as the -universe?</p> - -<p>As I have said, the foregoing notes do not aim -at being exhaustive. To set down, even from an -American point of view, a complete record of the -inadequacies which are to be found in the <cite>Britannica’s</cite><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[159]</a></span> -account of modern science would require -much more space than I can devote to it here. I -have tried merely to indicate, by a few names and -a few comparisons, the insular nature of this Encyclopædia’s -expositions, and thereby to call attention -to the very obvious fact that the <cite>Britannica</cite> -is <em>not</em> “an international dictionary of biography,” -but a prejudiced work in which English -endeavor, through undue emphasis and exaggeration, -is given the first consideration. Should this -Encyclopædia be depended upon for information, -one would get but the meagrest idea of the splendid -advances which America has made in modern -science. And, although I have here touched only -on medicine and biology, the same narrow and -provincial British viewpoint can be found in the -<cite>Britannica’s</cite> treatment of the other sciences as -well.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[160]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_IX">IX<br /> -<span class="smaller">INVENTIONS, PHOTOGRAPHY, ÆSTHETICS</span></h2> - -<p>In the matter of American inventions the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> would appear to have said as little -as possible, and to have minimized our importance -in that field as much as it dared. And -yet American inventors, to quote H. Addington -Bruce, “have not simply astonished mankind; -they have enhanced the prestige, power, and prosperity -of their country.” The <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors -apparently do not agree with this; and when -we think of the wonderful romance of American -inventions, and the possibilities in the subject for -full and interesting writing, and then read the -brief, and not infrequently disdainful, accounts -that are presented, we are conscious at once not -only of an inadequacy in the matter of facts, but -of a niggardliness of spirit.</p> - -<p>Let us regard the Encyclopædia’s treatment of -steam navigation. Under <cite>Steamboat</cite> we read: -“The first practical steamboat was the tug ‘Charlotte -Dundas,’ built by William Symington -(Scotch), and tried in the Forth and Clyde Canal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[161]</a></span> -in 1802.... The trial was successful, but steam -towing was abandoned for fear of injuring the -banks of the canal. Ten years later Henry Bell -built the ‘Comet,’ with side-paddle wheels, which -ran as a passenger steamer on the Clyde; but an -earlier inventor to follow up Symington’s success -was the American, Robert Fulton....”</p> - -<p>This practically sums up the history of that -notable achievement. Note the method of presentation, -with the mention of Fulton as a kind of -afterthought. While the data may technically -come within the truth, the impression given is a -false one, or at least a British one. Even English -authorities admit that Fulton established definitely -the value of the steamboat as a medium -for passenger and freight traffic; but here the -credit, through implication, is given to Symington -and Bell. And yet, if Symington is to be given -so much credit for pioneer work, why are not William -Henry, of Pennsylvania, John Stevens, of -New Jersey, Nathan Read, of Massachusetts, and -John Fitch, of Connecticut, mentioned also? -Surely each of these other Americans was important -in the development of the idea of steam -as motive power in water.</p> - -<p>Eli Whitney receives a biography of only two-thirds -of a column; Morse, less than a column; -and Elias Howe, only a little over half a column.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[162]</a></span> -Even Thomas Edison receives only thirty-three -lines of biography—a mere statement of facts. -Such a biography is an obvious injustice; and the -American buyers of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -have just cause for complaining against such inadequacy. -Edison admittedly is a towering figure -in modern science, and an encyclopædia the -size of the <cite>Britannica</cite> should have a full and interesting -account of his life, especially since obscure -English scientists are accorded far more -liberal biographies.</p> - -<p>Alexander Graham Bell, however, receives the -scantiest biography of all. It runs to just fifteen -lines! And the name of Daniel Drawbaugh is -not mentioned. He and Bell filed their papers -for a telephone on the same day; and it was only -after eight years’ litigation that the Supreme -Court decided in Bell’s favor—four judges favoring -him and three favoring Drawbaugh. No -reference is made of this interesting fact. Would -the omission have occurred had Drawbaugh been -an Englishman instead of a Pennsylvanian, or -had not Bell been a native Scotchman?</p> - -<p>The name of Charles Tellier, the Frenchman, -does not appear in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Not even -under <cite>Refrigerating and Ice Making</cite> is he mentioned. -And yet back in 1868 he began experiments -which culminated in the refrigerating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[163]</a></span> -plant as used on ocean vessels to-day. Tellier, -more than any other man, can be called the inventor -of cold storage, one of the most important -of modern discoveries, for it has revolutionized -the food question and had far-reaching effects on -commerce. Again we are prompted to ask if his -name would have been omitted from the <cite>Britannica</cite> -had he been an Englishman.</p> - -<p>Another unaccountable omission occurs in the -case of Rudolph Diesel. Diesel, the inventor of -the Diesel engine, is comparable only to Watts in -the development of power; but he is not considered -of sufficient importance by the editors of the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> to be given a biography. -And under <cite>Oil Engine</cite> we read: “Mr. Diesel has -produced a very interesting engine which departs -considerably from other types.” Then follows a -brief technical description of it. This is the entire -consideration given to Diesel, with his “interesting” -engine, despite the fact that the British -Government sent to Germany for him in order -to investigate his invention!</p> - -<p>Few names in the history of modern invention -stand as high as Wilbur and Orville Wright. To -them can be attributed the birth of the airplane. -In 1908, to use the words of an eminent authority, -“the Wrights brought out their biplanes and -practically taught the world to fly.” The story<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[164]</a></span> -of how these two brothers developed aviation is, -according to the same critic, “one of the most inspiring -chronicles of the age.” The <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -editors, if we are to judge their viewpoint by the -treatment accorded the Wright brothers in this -encyclopædia, held no such opinion. Not only -is neither of these men given a biography, but -under <cite>Flight and Flying</cite>—the only place in the -whole twenty-nine volumes where their names appear—they -are accorded much less consideration -than they deserve. Sir Hiram S. Maxim’s flying -adventures receive more space.</p> - -<p class="tb">A subject which unfortunately is too little -known in this country and yet one in the development -of which America has played a very important -part, is pictorial photography. A double -interest therefore attaches to the manner in which -this subject is treated in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Since -the writer of the article was thoroughly familiar -with the true conditions, an adequate record might -have been looked for. But no such record was -forthcoming. In the discussion of photography -in this Encyclopædia the same bias is displayed as -in other departments—the same petty insularity, -the same discrimination against America, the -same suppression of vital truth, and the same exaggerated -glorification of England. In this instance,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[165]</a></span> -however, there is documentary proof showing -deliberate misrepresentation, and therefore -we need not attribute the shortcomings to chauvinistic -stupidity, as we have so charitably done in -similar causes.</p> - -<p>In the article on <cite>Pictorial Photography</cite> in this -aggressibly British reference work we find the -following: “It is interesting to note that as a -distinct movement pictorial photography is essentially -of British origin, and this is shown by -the manner in which organized photographic -bodies in Vienna, Brussels, Paris, St. Petersburg, -Florence, and other European cities, as well as in -Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., following the example -of London, held exhibitions on exactly similar -lines to those of the London Photographic Salon, -and invited known British exhibitors to contribute.” -Then it is noted that the interchange of -works between British and foreign exhibitors led, -in the year 1900, “to a very remarkable cult calling -itself ‘The New American School,’ which had -a powerful influence on contemporaries in Great -Britain.”</p> - -<p>The foregoing brief and inadequate statements -contain all the credit that is given America in -this field. New York, where much of the foremost -and important work was done, is not mentioned; -and the name of Alfred Stieglitz, who is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[166]</a></span> -undeniably the towering figure in American photography -as well as one of the foremost figures in -the world’s photography, is omitted entirely. -Furthermore, slight indication is given of the -“powerful influence” which America has had; and -the significant part she has played in photography, -together with the names of the American leaders, -is completely ignored, although there is quite a -lengthy discussion concerning English photographic -history, including credit to those who participated -in it.</p> - -<p>For instance, the American, Steichen, a world -figure in photography and, of a type, perhaps the -greatest who ever lived, is not mentioned. Nor -are Gertrude Käsebier and Frank Eugene, both of -whom especially the former, has had an enormous -international influence in pictorial photography. -And although there is a history of the formation -of the “Linked Ring” in London, no credit is -given to Stieglitz whose work, during twenty-five -years in Germany and Vienna, was one of the -prime influences in the crystallization of this -brotherhood. Nor is there so much as a passing -reference to <cite>Camera Work</cite> (published in New -York) which stands at the head of photographic -publications.</p> - -<p>As I have said, there exists documentary evidence -which proves the deliberate unfairness of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[167]</a></span> -this article. It is therefore not necessary to accept -my judgment on the importance of Stieglitz -and the work done in America. A. Horsley -Hinton, who is responsible for the prejudiced -article in the Encyclopædia, was the editor of <cite>The -Amateur Photographer</cite>, a London publication; -and in that magazine, as long ago as 1904, we -have, in Mr. Hinton’s own words, a refutation of -what he wrote for the <cite>Britannica</cite>. In the May -19 (1904) issue he writes: “We believe every -one who is interested in the advance of photography -generally, will learn with pleasure that -Mr. Alfred Stieglitz, whose life-long and wholly -disinterested devotion to pictorial photography -should secure him a unique position, will be present -at the opening of the next Exhibition of the -Photographic Salon in London. Mr. Stieglitz -was zealous in all good photographic causes long -before the Salon, and indeed long before pictorial -photography was discussed—with Dr. Vogel in -Germany, for instance, twenty-five years ago.”</p> - -<p>Elsewhere in this same magazine we read: -“American photography is going to be the ruling -note throughout the world unless others bestir -themselves; indeed, the Photo-Secession (American) -pictures have already captured the highest -places in the esteem of the civilized world. -Hardly an exhibition of first importance is anywhere<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[168]</a></span> -held without a striking collection of American -work, brought together and sent by Mr. Alfred -Stieglitz. For the last two or three years in -the European exhibitions these collections have -secured the premier awards, or distinctions.” And -again we find high praise of Steichen, “than whom -America possesses no more brilliant genius among -her sons who have taken up photography.”</p> - -<p>These quotations—and many similar ones appeared -over a decade ago in Mr. Hinton’s magazine—give -evidence that Mr. Hinton was not -unaware of the extreme importance of American -photographic work or of the eminent men who -took part in it; and yet in writing his article for -the <cite>Britannica</cite> he has apparently carefully forgotten -what he himself had previously written.</p> - -<p>But this is not the only evidence we have of -deliberate injustice in the Encyclopædia’s disgraceful -neglect of our efforts in this line. In -1913, in the same English magazine, we find not -only an indirect confession of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -bias, but also the personal reason for that bias. -Speaking of Stieglitz’s connection with that phase -of photographic history to which Mr. Hinton was -most intimately connected, this publication says: -“At that era, and for long afterwards, Stieglitz -was, in fact, a thorn in our sides. ‘Who’s Boss -of the Show?’ inquires a poster, now placarded<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[169]</a></span> -in London. Had that question been asked of -the (London) Salon, an irritated whisper of -honesty would have replied ‘Stieglitz.’ And -... we didn’t like it. We couldn’t do without -him; but these torrential doctrines of his were, to -be candid, a nuisance.... He is an influence; -an influence for which, even if photography were -not concerned, we should be grateful, but which, -as it is, we photographers can never perhaps justly -estimate.” After this frank admission the magazine -adds: “Stieglitz—too big a man to need -any ‘defense’—has been considerably misunderstood -and misrepresented, and, in so far as this is -so, photographers and photography itself are the -losers.”</p> - -<p>What better direct evidence could one desire -than this naïf confession? Yes, Stieglitz, who, -according to Mr. Hinton’s own former publication, -was a thorn in that critic’s side, has indeed -been “misrepresented”; but nowhere has he been -neglected with so little excuse as in Mr. Hinton’s -own article in the <cite>Britannica</cite>. And though—again -according to this magazine—Stieglitz is -“too big a man to need any ‘defense,’” I cannot -resist defending him here; for the whole, petty, -personal and degrading affair is characteristic of -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica’s</cite> contemptible treatment -of America and Americans.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[170]</a></span></p> - -<p>Such flagrant political intriguing, such an obvious -attempt to use the Encyclopædia to destroy -America’s high place in the world of modern -achievement, can only arouse disgust in the unprejudiced -reader. The great light-bearer in the -photographic field, <cite>Camera Work</cite>, if generally -known and appreciated, would have put Mr. Hinton’s -own inferior magazine out of existence as a -power; and his omitting to mention it in his article -and even in his bibliography, is a flagrant example -of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> refusal to tell the whole -truth whenever that truth would harm England -or benefit America.</p> - -<p class="tb">In view of the wide and growing interest in -æsthetics and of the immense progress which has -been made recently in æsthetic research, one would -expect to find an adequate and comprehensive -treatment of that subject in a work like the <cite>Britannica</cite>. -But here again one will be disappointed. -The article on æsthetics reveals a <i lang="fr">parti pris</i> which -illy becomes a work which should be, as it claims -to be, objective and purely informative. The -author of the article is critical and not seldom -argumentative; and, as a result, full justice is not -done the theories and research of many eminent -modern æstheticians. Twenty-two lines are all -that are occupied in setting forth the æsthetic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[171]</a></span> -writers in Germany since Goethe and Schiller, and -in this brief paragraph, many of the most significant -contributors to the subject are not even given -passing mention. And, incredible as it may -seem, that division of the article which deals with -the German writers is shorter than the division -dealing with English writers!</p> - -<p>One might forgive scantiness of material in this -general article if it were possible to find the leading -modern æsthetic theories set forth in the -biographies of the men who conceived them. But—what -is even more astonishing in the Encyclopædia’s -treatment of æsthetics—there are no biographies -of many of the scientists whose names -and discoveries are familiar to any one even -superficially interested in the subject. Several of -these men, whose contributions have marked a new -epoch in psychological and æsthetic research, are -not even mentioned in the text of the Encyclopædia; -and the only indication we have that they -lived and worked is in an occasional foot-note. -Their names do not so much as appear in the -Index!</p> - -<p>Külpe, one of the foremost psychologists and -æstheticians, has no biography, and he is merely -mentioned in a foot-note as being an advocate of -the principle of association. Lipps, who laid the -foundation of the new philosophy of æsthetics and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[172]</a></span> -formulated the hypothesis of <cite>Einfühlung</cite>, has no -biography. His name appears once—under -<cite>Æsthetics</cite>—and his theory is actually disputed by -the critic who wrote the article. Groos, another -important æsthetic leader, is also without a biography; -and his name is not in the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -Index. Nor is Hildebrand, whose solutions to -the problem of form are of grave importance, -thought worthy of mention.</p> - -<p>There is no excuse for such inadequacy, especially -as England possesses in Vernon Lee a -most capable interpreter of æsthetics—a writer -thoroughly familiar with the subject, and one -whose articles and books along this line of research -have long been conspicuous for their brilliancy -and thoroughness.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, in this article we have another -example of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> contempt for American -achievement. This country has made important -contributions to æsthetics; and only an Englishman -could have written a modern exposition -of the subject without referring to the researches -of William James and Hugo Münsterberg. The -Lange-James hypothesis has had an important influence -on æsthetic theory; and Münsterberg’s observations -on æsthetic preference, form-perception -and projection of feelings, play a vital rôle in the -history of modern æsthetic science; but you will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[173]</a></span> -look in vain for any mention of these Americans’ -work. Münsterberg’s <cite>Principles of Art -Education</cite> is not even included in the bibliography.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[174]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_X">X<br /> -<span class="smaller">PHILOSOPHY</span></h2> - -<p>One going to the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> for -critical information concerning philosophy will -encounter the very essence of that spirit which is -merely reflected in the other departments of the -Encyclopædia’s culture. In this field the English -editors and contributors of the <cite>Britannica</cite> are -dealing with the sources of thought, and as a result -British prejudice finds a direct outlet.</p> - -<p>To be sure, it is difficult for a critic possessing -the mental characteristics and the ethical and religious -predispositions of his nation, to reveal the -entire field of philosophy without bias. He has -certain temperamental affinities which will draw -him toward his own country’s philosophical systems, -and certain antipathies which will turn him -against contrary systems of other nations. But -in the higher realms of criticism it is possible to -find that intellectual detachment which can review -impersonally the development of thought, -no matter what tangential directions it may take. -There have been several adequate histories of philosophy<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[175]</a></span> -written by British critics, proving that -it is not necessary for an Englishman to regard -the evolution of thinking only through distorted -and prejudiced eyes.</p> - -<p>The <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, however, evidently -holds to no such just ideal in its exposition -of philosophical research. Only in a very -few of the biographies do we find evidences of -an attempt to set forth this difficult subject with -impartiality. As in its other departments, the -Encyclopædia places undue stress on British -thinkers: it accords them space out of all proportion -to their relative importance, and includes -obscure and inconsequent British moralists while -omitting biographies of far more important -thinkers of other nations.</p> - -<p>This obvious discrepancy in space might be -overlooked did the actual material of the biographies -indicate the comparative importance of -the thinkers dealt with. But when British critics -consider the entire history of thought from the -postulates of their own writers, and emphasize -only those philosophers of foreign nationality -who appeal to “English ways of thinking,” then -it is impossible to gain any adequate idea of the -philosophical teachings of the world as a whole. -And this is precisely the method pursued by the -<cite>Britannica</cite> in dealing with the history and development<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[176]</a></span> -of modern thought. In nearly every -instance, and in every important instance, it has -been an English didactician who has interpreted -for this Encyclopædia the teachings of the world’s -leading philosophers; and there are few biographies -which do not reveal British prejudice.</p> - -<p>The modern English critical mind, being in the -main both insular and middle-class, is dominated -by a suburban moral instinct. And even among -the few more scholarly critics there is a residue -of puritanism which tinctures the syllogisms and -dictates the deductions. In bringing their minds -to bear on creative works these critics are filled -with a sense of moral disquietude. At bottom -they are Churchmen. They mistake the tastes -and antipathies which have been bred in them by -a narrow religious and ethical culture, for pure -critical criteria. They regard the great men of -other nations through the miasma of their tribal -taboos.</p> - -<p>This rigid and self-satisfied provincialism of -outlook, as applied to philosophers in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, is not, I am inclined to believe, -the result of a deliberate attempt to exaggerate -the importance of British thinkers and to -underrate the importance of non-British thinkers. -To the contrary, it is, I believe, the result of an -unconscious ethical prejudice coupled with a blind<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[177]</a></span> -and self-contented patriotism. But whatever the -cause, the result is the same. Consequently, any -one who wishes an unbiased exposition of philosophical -history must go to a source less insular, -and less distorted than the <cite>Britannica</cite>. Only a -British moralist, or one encrusted with British -morality, will be wholly satisfied with the manner -in which philosophy is here treated; and since -there are a great many Americans who have not, -as yet, succumbed to English <i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> theology -and who do not believe, for instance, that Isaac -Newton is of greater philosophic importance than -Kant, this Encyclopædia will be of far -more value to an Englishman than to an American.</p> - -<p>The first distortion which will impress one who -seeks information in the <cite>Britannica</cite> is to be found -in the treatment of English empirical philosophers—that -is, of John Locke, Isaac Newton, -George Berkeley, Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, -Joseph Butler, Mandeville, Hume, Adam -Smith and David Hartley. Locke receives fifteen -columns of detailed exposition, with inset -headings. “He was,” we are told, “typically -English in his reverence for facts” and “a signal -example in the Anglo-Saxon world of the love of -attainable truth for the sake of truth and goodness.” -Then we are given the quotation: “If<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[178]</a></span> -Locke made few discoveries, Socrates made none.” -Furthermore, he was “memorable in the record -of human progress.”</p> - -<p>Isaac Newton receives no less than nineteen columns -filled with specific and unstinted praise; -and in the three-and-a-half column biography of -George Berkeley we learn that Berkeley’s “new -conception marks a distinct stage of progress in -human thought”; that “he once for all lifted the -problem of metaphysics to a higher level,” and, -with Hume, “determined the form into which -later metaphysical questions have been thrown.” -Shaftesbury, whose main philosophical importance -was due to his ethical and moral speculations -in refutation of Hobbes’ egoism, is represented -by a biography of four and a half columns!</p> - -<p>Hume receives over fourteen columns, with -inset headings; Adam Smith, nearly nine columns, -five and a half of which are devoted to a detailed -consideration of his <cite>Wealth of Nations</cite>. Hutcheson, -the ethical moralist who drew the analogy -between beauty and virtue—the doctrinaire of the -moral sense and the benevolent feelings—is given -no less than five columns; while Joseph Butler, -the philosophic divine who, we are told, is a -“typical instance of the English philosophical -mind” and whose two basic premises were the existence -of a theological god and the limitation of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[179]</a></span> -human knowledge, is given six and a half -columns!</p> - -<p>On the other hand, Mandeville receives only a -column and two-thirds. To begin with, he was -of French parentage, and his philosophy (according -to the <cite>Britannica</cite>) “has always been stigmatized -as false, cynical and degrading.” He did -not believe in the higher Presbyterian virtues, and -read hypocrisy into the vaunted goodness of the -English. Although in a history of modern philosophy -he is deserving of nearly equal space with -Butler, in the <cite>Britannica</cite> he is given only a little -over one-fifth of the space! Even David Hartley, -the English physician who supplemented -Hume’s theory of knowledge, is given nearly as -much consideration as the “degrading” Mandeville. -And Joseph Priestley, who merely popularized -these theories, is given no less than two -columns.</p> - -<p>Let us turn now to what has been called the -“philosophy of the enlightenment” in France and -Germany, and we shall see the exquisite workings -of British moral prejudice in all its purity. Voltaire, -we learn, “was one of the most astonishing, -if not exactly one of the more admirable, figures -of letters.” He had “cleverness,” but not -“genius”; and his great fault was an “inveterate -superficiality.” Again: “Not the most elaborate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[180]</a></span> -work of Voltaire is of much value for matter.” -(The biography, a derogatory and condescending -one, is written by the eminent moralist, George -Saintsbury.)</p> - -<p>Condillac, who is given far less space than -either Berkeley or Shaftesbury, only half of the -space given Hutcheson, and only a little over one-third -of the space given Joseph Butler, is set down -as important for “having established systematically -in France the principles of Locke.” But -his “genius was not of the highest order”; and in -his analysis of the mind “he missed out the active -and spiritual side of human experience.” James -Mill did not like him, and his method of imaginative -reconstruction “was by no means suited -to English ways of thinking.” This latter shortcoming -no doubt accounts for the meagre and uncomplimentary -treatment Condillac receives in -the great British reference work which is devoted -so earnestly to “English ways of thinking.”</p> - -<p>Helvétius, whose theory of equality is closely -related to Condillac’s doctrine of psychic passivity, -is given even shorter shrift, receiving only -a column and a third; and it is noted that “there -is no doubt that his thinking was unsystematic.” -Diderot, however, fares much better, receiving -five columns of biography. But then, more and -more “did Diderot turn for the hope of the race<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[181]</a></span> -to virtue; in other words, to such a regulation of -conduct and motive as shall make us tender, pitiful, -simple, contented,”—an attitude eminently -fitted to “English ways of thinking”! And Diderot’s -one great literary passion, we learn, was -Richardson, the English novelist.</p> - -<p>La Mettrie, the atheist, who held no brief for -the pious virtues or for the theological soul so beloved -by the British, receives just half a column -of biography in which the facts of his doctrine -are set down more in sorrow than in anger. Von -Holbach, the German-Parisian prophet of earthly -happiness, who denied the existence of a deity and -believed that the soul became extinct at physical -death, receives only a little more space than La -Mettrie—less than a column. But then, the uprightness -of Von Holbach’s character “won the -friendship of many to whom his philosophy was -repugnant.”</p> - -<p>Montesquieu, however, is given five columns -with liberal praise—both space and eulogy being -beyond his deserts. Perhaps an explanation of -such generosity lies in this sentence which we -quote from his biography: “It is not only that -he is an Anglo-maniac, but that he is rather English -than French in style and thought.”</p> - -<p>Rousseau, on the other hand, possessed no such -exalted qualities; and the biography of this great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[182]</a></span> -Frenchman is shorter than Adam Smith’s and only -a little longer than that of the English divine, -Joseph Butler! The <cite>Britannica</cite> informs us that -Rousseau’s moral character was weak and that he -did not stand very high as a man. Furthermore, -he was not a philosopher; the essence of his religion -was sentimentalism; and during the last ten -or fifteen years of his life he was not sane. If -you wish to see how unjust and biased is this -moral denunciation of Rousseau, turn to any unprejudiced -history of philosophy, and compare the -serious and lengthy consideration given him, with -the consideration given the English moral thinkers -who prove such great favorites with the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> -editors.</p> - -<p>The German “philosophers of the enlightenment” -are given even less consideration. Christian -Wolff, whose philosophy admittedly held -almost undisputed sway in Germany till eclipsed -by Kantianism, receives only a column-and-a-half -biography, only half the space given to Samuel -Clarke, the English theological writer, and equal -space with John Norris, the English philosophical -divine, and with Arthur Collier, the English High -Church theologian. Even Anthony Collins, the -English deist, receives nearly as long a biography. -Moses Mendelssohn draws only two and a half -columns; Crusius, only half a column; Lambert,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[183]</a></span> -only a little over three-fourths of a column; Reimarus, -only a column and a third, in which he is -considered from the standpoint of the English -deists; and Edelmann and Tetens have no biographies -whatever!</p> - -<p>Kant, as I have noted, receives less biographical -space than Isaac Newton, and only about a fifth -more space than does either John Locke or Hume. -It is unnecessary to indicate here the prejudice -shown by these comparisons. Every one is cognizant -of Kant’s tremendous importance in the -history of thought, and knows what relative consideration -should be given him in a work like the -<cite>Britannica</cite>. Hamann, “the wise man of the -North,” who was the foremost of Kant’s opponents, -receives only a column-and-a-quarter biography, -in which he is denounced. His writings, -to one not acquainted with the man, must be -“entirely unintelligible and, from their peculiar, -pietistic tone and scriptural jargon, probably offensive.” -And he expressed himself in “uncouth, -barbarous fashion.” Herder, however, another -and lesser opponent of Kantianism, receives four -and a half columns. Jacobi receives three; Reinhold, -half a column; Maimon, two-thirds of a -column; and Schiller, four and a half columns. -Compare these allotments of space with: Thomas -Hill Green, the English neo-Kantian, two and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[184]</a></span> -two-thirds columns; Richard Price, a column and -three-fourths; Martineau, the English philosophic -divine, five columns; Ralph Cudworth, two columns; -and Joseph Butler, six and a half columns!</p> - -<p>In the treatment of German philosophic romanticism -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> is curiously -prejudiced. The particular philosophers of -this school—especially the ones with speculative -systems—who had a deep and wide influence -on English thought, are treated with adequate -liberality. But the later idealistic thinkers, who -substituted criticism for speculation, receive scant -attention, and in several instances are omitted entirely. -For English readers such a disproportioned -and purely national attitude may be adequate, -since England’s intellectualism is, in the -main, insular. But, it must be remembered, the -<cite>Britannica</cite> has assumed the character of an American -institution; and, to date, this country has not -quite reached that state of British complacency -where it chooses to ignore <em>all</em> information save -that which is narrowly relative to English culture. -Some of us are still un-British enough to want an -encyclopædia of universal information. The -<cite>Britannica</cite> is not such a reference work, and the -manner in which it deals with the romantic -philosophers furnishes ample substantiation of -this fact.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[185]</a></span></p> - -<p>Fichte, for instance, whose philosophy embodies -a moral idealism eminently acceptable to -“English ways of thinking,” receives seven columns -of biography. Schelling, whose ideas were -tainted with mythical mysticism, but who was not -an evolutionist in the modern sense of the word, -receives five columns. Hegel, who was, in a -sense, the great English philosophical idol and -whose doctrines had a greater influence in Great -Britain than those of any other thinker, is given -no less than fifteen columns, twice the space that -is given to Rousseau, and five-sixths of the space -that is given to Kant! Even Schleiermacher is -given almost equal space with Rousseau, and his -philosophy is interpreted as an effort “to reconcile -science and philosophy with religion and theology, -and the modern world with the Christian church.” -Also, the focus of his thought, culture and life, -we are told, “was religion and theology.”</p> - -<p>Schopenhauer is one of the few foreign philosophers -who receive adequate treatment in the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. But Boström, in -whose works the romantic school attained its systematic -culmination, receives just twenty-four -lines, less space than is devoted to Abraham -Tucker, the English moralist, or to Garth Wilkinson, -the English Swedenborgian; and about the -same amount of space as is given to John Morell,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[186]</a></span> -the English Congregationalist minister who -turned philosopher. And Frederick Christian -Sibbern receives no biography whatever!</p> - -<p>Kierkegaard, whose influence in the North has -been profound, receives only half a column, equal -space with Andrew Baxter, the feeble Scottish -metaphysician; and only half the space given to -Thomas Brown, another Scotch “philosopher.” -Fries who, with Herbart, was the forerunner of -modern psychology and one of the leading representatives -of the critical philosophy, is given just -one column; but Beneke, a follower of Fries, who -approached more closely to the English school, -is allotted twice the amount of space that Fries -receives.</p> - -<p>The four men who marked the dissolution of -the Hegelian school—Krause, Weisse, I. H. -Fichte and Feuerbach—receive as the sum total -of all their biographies less space than is given to -the English divine, James Martineau, or to -Francis Hutcheson. (In combating Hegelianism -these four thinkers invaded the precincts of -British admiration.) In the one-column biography -of Krause we are told that the spirit of his -thought is difficult to follow and that his terminology -is artificial. Weisse receives only twenty-three -lines; and I. H. Fichte, the son of J. G. -Fichte, receives only two-thirds of a column.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[187]</a></span> -Feuerbach, who marked the transition between -romanticism and positivism and who accordingly -holds an important position in the evolution of -modern thought, is accorded a biography of a -column and a half, shorter than that of Richard -Price. Feuerbach, however, unlike Price, was an -anti-theological philosopher, and is severely criticised -for his spiritual shortcomings.</p> - -<p>Let us glance quickly at the important philosophers -of positivism as represented in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>. At the end of the seventeenth -and at the beginning of the nineteenth -centuries the principal French philosophers representative -of schools were de Maistre, Maine de -Biran, Ampère, Saint-Simon and Victor Cousin. -De Maistre, the most important philosopher of -the principle of authority, is given a biography of -a column and a third, is highly praised for his -ecclesiasticism, and is permitted to be ranked with -Hobbes. Maine de Biran receives a little over -a column; Ampère, less than a column; and Saint-Simon, -two and a third columns.</p> - -<p>Victor Cousin is given the astonishing amount -of space of eleven columns; but just why he -should have been treated in this extravagant manner -is not clear, for we are told that his search for -principles was not profound and that he “left no -distinctive, permanent principles of philosophy.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[188]</a></span> -Nor does it seem possible that he should draw -nearly as much space as Rousseau and Montesquieu -combined simply because he left behind -interesting analyses and expositions of the work -of Locke and the Scottish philosophers. Even -Comte is given only four and a half columns -more.</p> - -<p>The English philosophers of the nineteenth -century before John Stuart Mill are awarded -space far in excess of their importance, comparatively -speaking. For instance, James Mill receives -two columns of biography; Coleridge, who -“did much to deepen and liberalize Christian -thought in England,” five and three-fourths columns; -Carlyle, nine and two-thirds columns; -William Hamilton, two and three-fourths columns; -Henry Mansel, a disciple of Hamilton’s, -two-thirds of a column; Whewell, over a column; -and Bentham, over three and a half columns.</p> - -<p>Bentham’s doctrines “have become so far part -of the common thought of the time, that there is -hardly an educated man who does not accept as -too clear for argument truths which were invisible -till Bentham pointed them out.... The -services rendered by Bentham to the world would -not, however, be exhausted even by the practical -adoption of every one of his recommendations. -There are no limits to the good results of his introduction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[189]</a></span> -of a true method of reasoning into the -moral and political sciences.” John Stuart Mill, -whose philosophy is “generally spoken of as being -typically English,” receives nine and a half -columns; Charles Darwin, seven columns; and -Herbert Spencer, over five.</p> - -<p>Positivism in Germany is represented by Dühring -in a biography which is only three-fourths of -a column in length—an article which is merely an -attack, both personal and general. “His patriotism,” -we learn, “is fervent, but narrow and -exclusive.” (Dühring idolized Frederick the -Great.) Ardigò, the important Italian positivist, -receives no mention whatever in the Encyclopædia, -although in almost any adequate history -of modern philosophy, even a brief one, you will -find a discussion of his work.</p> - -<p>With the exception of Lotze, the philosophers -of the new idealism receive scant treatment in the -<cite>Britannica</cite>. Hartmann and Fechner are accorded -only one column each; and Wilhelm -Wundt, whose æsthetic and psychological researches -outstrip even his significant philosophical -work, is accorded only half a column! Francis -Herbert Bradley has no biography—a curious -oversight, since he is English; and Fouillée receives -only a little over half a column.</p> - -<p>The most inadequate and prejudiced treatment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[190]</a></span> -in the <cite>Britannica</cite> of any modern philosopher is to -be found in the biography of Nietzsche, which is -briefer than Mrs. Humphry Ward’s! Not only -is Nietzsche accorded less space than is given to -such British philosophical writers as Dugald -Stewart, Henry Sidgwick, Richard Price, John -Norris, Thomas Hill Green, James Frederick -Ferrier, Adam Ferguson, Ralph Cudworth, Anthony -Collins, Arthur Collier, Samuel Clarke and -Alexander Bain—an absurd and stupid piece of -narrow provincial prejudice—but the biography -itself is superficial and inaccurate. The supposed -doctrine of Nietzsche is here used to expose -the personal opinions of the tutor of Corpus -Christi College who was assigned the task of interpreting -Nietzsche to the readers of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. -It would be impossible to gather any -clear or adequate idea of Nietzsche and his work -from this biased and moral source. Here middle-class -British insularity reaches its high-water -mark.</p> - -<p>Other important modern thinkers, however, are -given but little better treatment. Lange receives -only three-fourths of a column; Paulsen, less than -half a column; Ernst Mach, only seventeen lines; -Eucken, only twenty-eight lines, with a list of his -works; and Renouvier, two-thirds of a column. -J. C. Maxwell, though, the Cambridge professor,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[191]</a></span> -gets two columns—twice the space given -Nietzsche!</p> - -<p>In the biography of William James we discern -once more the contempt which England has for -this country. Here is a man whose importance -is unquestioned even in Europe, and who stands -out as one of the significant figures in modern -thought; yet the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, that -“supreme book of knowledge,” gives him a biography -of just twenty-eight lines! And it is -Americans who are furnishing the profits for this -English reference work!</p> - -<p>Perhaps the British editors of this encyclopædia -think that we should feel greatly complimented -at having William James admitted at all when -so many other important moderns of Germany -and France and America are excluded. But so -long as unimportant English philosophical writers -are given biographies, we have a right to expect, -in a work which calls itself an “international dictionary -of biography,” the adequate inclusion of -the more deserving philosophers of other nations.</p> - -<p>But what do we actually find? You may hunt -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> through, yet you -will not see the names of John Dewey and Stanley -Hall mentioned! John Dewey, an American, -is perhaps the world’s leading authority on -the philosophy of education; but the British editors<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[192]</a></span> -of the Encyclopædia do not consider him -worth noting, even in a casual way. Furthermore, -Stanley Hall, another American, who -stands in the front rank of the world’s genetic -psychologists, is not so much as mentioned. And -yet Hall’s great work, <cite>Adolescence</cite>, appeared five -years before the <cite>Britannica</cite> went to press! Nor -has Josiah Royce a biography, despite the fact -that he was one of the leaders in the philosophical -thought of America, and was even made an LL.D. -by Aberdeen University in 1900. These omissions -furnish excellent examples of the kind of -broad and universal culture which is supposed to -be embodied in the <cite>Britannica</cite>.</p> - -<p>But these are by no means all the omissions of -the world’s important modern thinkers. Incredible -as it may seem, there is no biography of Hermann -Cohen, who elaborated the rationalistic -elements in Kant’s philosophy; of Alois Riehl, -the positivist neo-Kantian; of Windelband and -Rickert, whose contributions to the theory of -eternal values in criticism are of decided significance -to-day; of Freud, a man who has revolutionized -modern psychology and philosophic -determinism; of Amiel Boutroux, the modern -French philosopher of discontinuity; of Henri -Bergson, whose influence and popularity need no -exposition here; of Guyau, one of the most effective<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[193]</a></span> -critics of English utilitarianism and evolutionism; -or of Jung.</p> - -<p>When we add Roberto Ardigò, Weininger, -Edelmann, Tetans, and Sibbern to this list of -philosophic and psychologic writers who are not -considered of sufficient importance to receive -biographical mention in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>, -we have, at a glance, the prejudicial inadequacy -and incompleteness of this “great” English -reference work. Nor can any excuse be offered -that the works of these men appeared after the -<cite>Britannica</cite> was printed. At the time it went to -press even the most modern of these writers held -a position of sufficient significance or note to have -been included.</p> - -<p>In closing, and by way of contrast, let me set -down some of the modern British philosophical -writers who are given liberal biographies; Robert -Adamson, the Scottish critical historian of -philosophy; Alexander Bain; Edward and John -Caird, Scottish philosophic divines; Harry Calderwood, -whose work was based on the contention -that fate implies knowledge and on the doctrine -of divine sanction; David George Ritchie, an unimportant -Scotch thinker; Henry Sidgwick, an -orthodox religionist and one of the founders of -the Society for Psychical Research; James H. -Stirling, an expounder of Hegel and Kant; William<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[194]</a></span> -Wallace, an interpreter of Hegel; and Garth -Wilkinson, the Swedenborgian homeopath.</p> - -<p>Such is the brief record of the manner in which -the world’s modern philosophers are treated in the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. From this work hundreds -of thousands of Americans are garnering -their educational ideas.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[195]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_XI">XI<br /> -<span class="smaller">RELIGION</span></h2> - -<p>Throughout several of the foregoing chapters -I have laid considerable emphasis on the narrow -parochial attitude of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors and -on the constant intrusion of England’s middle-class -Presbyterianism into nearly every branch of -æsthetics. The <cite>Britannica</cite>, far from being the -objective and unbiased work it claims to be, assumes -a personal and prejudiced attitude, and the -culture of the world is colored and tinctured by -that viewpoint. It would appear self-obvious to -say that the subject of religion in any encyclopædia -whose aim is to be universal, should be -limited to the articles on religious matters. But -in the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> this is not the -case. As I have shown, those great artists and -thinkers who do not fall within the range of -<i lang="fr">bourgeois</i> England’s suburban morality, are neglected, -disparaged, or omitted entirely.</p> - -<p>Not only patriotic prejudice, but evangelical -prejudice as well, characterizes this encyclopædia’s -treatment of the world’s great achievements;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[196]</a></span> -and nowhere does this latter bias exhibit -itself more unmistakably than in the articles relating -to Catholicism. The trickery, the manifest -ignorance, the contemptuous arrogance, the -inaccuracies, the venom, and the half-truths which -are encountered in the discussion of the Catholic -Church and its history almost pass the bounds of -credibility. The wanton prejudice exhibited in -this department of the <cite>Britannica</cite> cannot fail to -find resentment even in non-Catholics, like myself; -and for scholars, either in or out of the -Church, this encyclopædia, as a source of information, -is not only worthless but grossly misleading.</p> - -<p>The true facts relating to the inclusion of this -encyclopædia’s article on Catholicism, as showing -the arrogant and unscholarly attitude of the editors, -are as interesting to those outside of the -Church as to Catholics themselves. And it is for -the reason that these articles are typical of a great -many of the Encyclopædia’s discussions of culture -in general that I call attention both to the -misinformation contained in them and to the -amazing refusal of the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editors to correct -the errors when called to their attention at a -time when correction was possible. The treatment -of the Catholic Church by the <cite>Britannica</cite> -is quite in keeping with its treatment of other important<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[197]</a></span> -subjects, and it emphasizes, perhaps better -than any other topic, not only the Encyclopædia’s -petty bias and incompleteness, but the -indefensible and mendacious advertising by which -this set of books was foisted upon the American -public. And it also gives direct and irrefutable -substantiation to my accusation that the spirit of -the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> is closely allied to -the provincial religious doctrines of the British -<i lang="fr">bourgeoisie</i>; and that therefore it is a work of the -most questionable value.</p> - -<p>Over five years ago T. J. Campbell, S. J., in -<cite>The Catholic Mind</cite>, wrote an article entitled <cite>The -Truth About the Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>—an -article which, from the standpoint of an authority, -exposed the utter unreliability of this Encyclopædia’s -discussion of Catholicism. The -article is too long to quote here, but enough of it -will be given to reveal the inadequacy of the -<cite>Britannica</cite> as a source of accurate information. -“The <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>,” the article begins, -“has taken an unfair advantage of the -public. By issuing all its volumes simultaneously -it prevented any protests against misstatements -until the whole harm was done. Henceforth -prudent people will be less eager to put -faith in prospectuses and promises. The volumes -were delivered in two installments a couple of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[198]</a></span> -months apart. The article <cite>Catholic Church</cite>, in -which the animus of the Encyclopædia might have -been detected, should naturally have been in the -first set. It was adroitly relegated to the end -of the second set, under the caption <cite>Roman Catholic -Church</cite>.</p> - -<p>“It had been intimated to us that the Encyclopædia’s -account of the Jesuits was particularly -offensive. That is our excuse for considering it -first. Turning to it we found that the same old -battered scarecrow had been set up. The article -covers ten and a half large, double-columned, -closely-printed pages, and requires more than an -hour in its perusal. After reading it two or three -times we closed the book with amazement, not -at the calumnies with which the article teems and -to which custom has made us callous, but at the -lack of good judgment, of accurate scholarship, -of common information, and business tact which -it reveals in those who are responsible for its -publication.</p> - -<p>“It ought to be supposed that the subscribers -to this costly encyclopædia had a right to expect -in the discussion of all the questions presented an -absolute or quasi-absolute freedom from partisan -bias, a sincere and genuine presentation of all the -results of the most modern research, a positive -exclusion of all second-hand and discredited matter,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[199]</a></span> -and a scrupulous adherence to historical truth. -In the article in question all these essential conditions -are woefully lacking.</p> - -<p>“Encyclopædias of any pretence take especial -pride in the perfection and completeness of their -bibliographies. It is a stamp of scholarship and -a guarantee of the thoroughness and reliability of -the article, which is supposed to be an extract -and a digest of all that has been said or written on -the subject. The bibliography annexed to the -article on the <cite>Jesuits</cite>, is not only deplorably -meagre, but hopelessly antiquated. Thus, for instance, -only three works of the present century -are quoted; one of them apparently for no reason -whatever, viz.: <cite>The History of the Jesuits of -North America</cite>, in three volumes, by Thomas -Hughes, S. J., for, as far as we are able to see, -the Encyclopædia article makes no mention of -their being with Lord Baltimore in Maryland, or -of the preceding troubles of the Jesuits in England, -which were considered important enough -for a monumental work, but evidently not for a -compiler of the Encyclopædia. Again, the nine -words, ‘laboring amongst the Hurons and Iroquois -of North America,’ form the sum total of -all the information vouchsafed us about the great -missions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, -though we are referred to the seventy-three<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[200]</a></span> -volumes of Thwaites’ edition of the <cite>Jesuits Relations</cite>. -Had the author or editor even glanced -at these books he might have seen that besides the -Huron and Iroquois missions, which were very -brief in point of time and very restricted in their -territorial limitations, the Jesuit missions with the -Algonquins extended from Newfoundland to -Alaska, and are still continued; he would have -found that most of the ethnological, religious, -linguistic and geographical knowledge we have of -aboriginal North America comes from those <cite>Jesuit -Relations</cite>; and possibly without much research -the sluggish reader would have met with a certain -inconspicuous Marquette; but as Englishmen, up -to the Civil War, are said to have imagined that -the Mississippi was the dividing line between the -North and South, the value of the epoch-making -discovery of the great river never entered this -slow foreigner’s mind. Nor is there any reference -to the gigantic labors of the Jesuits in Mexico; -but perhaps Mexico is not considered to be -in North America.</p> - -<p>“Nor is there in this bibliography any mention -of the <cite>Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu</cite>, nor -of the <cite>Monumenta Pædagogica</cite>, nor is there any -allusion to the great and learned works of Duhr, -Tacchi-Venturi, Fouqueray, and Kroes, which -have just been published and are mines of information<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[201]</a></span> -on the history of the Society in Spain, -Germany, Italy and France; and although we are -told of the <cite>Historia Societatis Jesu</cite> by Orlandini, -which bears the very remote imprint of 1620, is -very difficult to obtain, and covers a very restricted -period, there is apparently no knowledge -of the classic work of Jouvency, nor is Sacchini -cited, nor Polanco. The <cite>Bibliothèque des écrivains -de la Compagnie de Jésus</cite>, by De Backer, -not ‘Backer,’ as the Encyclopædia has it, is listed; -but it is simply shocking to find that there was no -knowledge of Sommervogel, who is the continuator -of De Backer, and who has left us a most -scholarly and splendid work which is brought -down to our own times, and for which De Backer’s, -notable though it be, was only a preparation. -In brief, the bibliography is absolutely worthless, -not only for a scholar, but even for the average -reader.</p> - -<p>“On the other hand it is quite in keeping with -the character of the writers who were chosen for -the article. The New York <cite>Evening Post</cite> informs -us that before 1880, when a search for a -suitable scribe for the Jesuit article was instituted, -some one started on a hunt for Cardinal Newman, -but the great man had no time. Then he thought -of Manning, who, of course, declined, and finally -knowing no other ‘Jesuit’ he gave the work to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[202]</a></span> -Littledale. Littledale, as everyone knows, was -an Anglican minister, notorious not only for his -antagonism to the Jesuits, but also to the Catholic -Church. He gladly addressed himself to the -task, and forthwith informed the world that ‘the -Jesuits controlled the policy of Spain’; that ‘it -was a matter of common knowledge that they -kindled the Franco-Prussian war of 1870’; that -‘Pope Julius II dispensed the Father General -from his vow of poverty,’ though that warrior -Pope expired eight years before Ignatius sought -the solitude of Manresa, and had as yet no idea -of a Society of Jesus; again, that ‘the Jesuits -from the beginning never obeyed the Pope’; that -‘in their moral teaching they can attenuate and -even defend any kind of sin’; and, finally, not to -be too prolix in this list of absurdities, that, prior -to the Vatican Council, ‘they had filled up all the -sees of Latin Christendom with bishops of their -own selection.’</p> - -<p>“It is true that only the last mentioned charge -appears in the present edition, and it is a fortunate -concession for Littledale’s suffering victims; -for if ‘there are no great intellects among the -Jesuits,’ and if they are only a set of ‘respectable -mediocrities,’ as this ‘revised’ article tells us, they -can point with pride to this feat which makes a -dozen Franco-Prussian wars pale into insignificance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[203]</a></span> -alongside it. We doubt, however, if the -700 prelates who sat in the Vatican Council -would accept that explanation of their promotion -in the prelacy; and we feel certain that Cardinal -Manning, who was one of the great figures in that -assembly, would resent it, at least if it be true, -as the Encyclopædia assures us, that he considered -the suppression of the Society in 1773 to be -the work of God, and was sure that another 1773 -was coming.</p> - -<p>“The wonder is that a writer who can be guilty -of such absurdities should, after twenty years, be -summoned from the dead as a witness to anything -at all. But on the other hand it is not surprising -when we see that the Rev. Ethelred Taunton, -who is also dead and buried, should be made his -yoke-fellow in ploughing over this old field, to -sow again these poisonous weeds. There are -many post-mortems in the Encyclopædia. Had -the careless editors of the Encyclopædia consulted -Usher’s <cite>Reconstruction of the English Church</cite>, -they would have found Taunton described as an -author ‘who makes considerable parade of the -amount of his research, but has not gone very far -and has added little, if anything, to what we -knew before. As a whole, his book on <cite>The History -of the Jesuits in England</cite> is uncritical and -prejudiced.’</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[204]</a></span></p> - -<p>“Such is the authority the Encyclopædia appeals -to for information. That is bad enough, -but in the list of authors Taunton is actually described -as a ‘Jesuit.’ Possibly it is one of the -punishments the Almighty has meted out to him -for his misuse of the pen while on earth. But -he never did half the harm to the Jesuits by his -ill-natured assaults as he has to the Encyclopædia -in being mistaken for an ‘S. J.’; for although -there are some people who will believe anything -an encyclopædia tells them, there are others who -are not so meek and who will be moved to inquire -how, if the editor of this publication is so lamentably -ignorant of the personality and antecedents -of his contributors, he can vouch for the reliability -of what newspaper men very properly call the -stuff that comes into the office. We are not told -who revised the writings of those two dead men, -one of whom departed this life twenty, the other -four years ago; and we have to be satisfied with -a posthumous and prejudiced and partly anonymous -account of a great Order, about which -many important books have been written since -the demise of the original calumniators, and with -which apparently the unknown reviser is unacquainted.</p> - -<p>“It may interest the public to know that many -of these errors were pointed out to the managers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[205]</a></span> -of the Encyclopædia at their New York office -when the matter was still in page proof and could -have been corrected. Evidently it was not -thought worth while to pay any attention to the -protest.</p> - -<p>“It is true that in the minds of some of their -enemies, especially in certain parts of the habitable -globe, Catholics have no right to resent anything -that is said of their practices and beliefs, -no matter how false or grotesque such statements -may be; and, consequently, we are not surprised -at the assumption by the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite> -of its usual contemptuous attitude. Thus, for -instance, on turning to the articles <cite>Casuistry</cite> and -<cite>Roman Catholic Church</cite> we find them signed -‘St. C.’ Naturally and supernaturally to be -under the guidance of a Saint C. or a Saint D. -always inspires confidence in a Catholic; but this -‘St. C.’ turns out to be only the Viscount St. -Cyres, a scion of the noble house of Sir Stafford -Northcote, the one time leader of the House of -Commons, who died in 1887. In the Viscount’s -ancestral tree we notice that Sir Henry Stafford -Northcote, first Baronet, has appended to his -name the title ‘Prov. Master of Devonshire Freemasons.’ -What ‘Prov.’ means we do not know, -but we are satisfied with the remaining part of -the description. The Viscount was educated at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[206]</a></span> -Eton, and Merton College, Oxford. He is a layman -and a clubman, and as far as we know is -not suspected of being a Catholic. A search in -the ‘Who’s Who?’ failed to reveal anything on -that point, though a glance at the articles over -his name will dispense us from any worry about -his religious status.</p> - -<p>“We naturally ask why he should have been -chosen to enlighten the world on Catholic topics? -‘Because,’ says the editor of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite>, ‘the Viscount St. Cyres has probably -more knowledge of the development of theology -in the Roman Catholic Church than any other -person in that Church.’</p> - -<p>“The Church was unaware that it had at its -disposal such a source of information. It will -be news to many, but we are inclined to ask how -the Viscount acquired that marvelous knowledge. -It would require a life-long absorption in the -study of divinity quite incompatible with the -social duties of one of his station. Furthermore, -we should like to know whence comes the competency -of the editor to decide on the ability of -the Viscount, and to pass judgment on the correctness -of his contribution? That also supposes -an adequate knowledge of all that the dogmatic, -moral and mystic theologians ever wrote, a life-long -training in the language and methods of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[207]</a></span> -science, and a special intellectual aptitude to comprehend -the sublime speculations of the Church’s -divines.</p> - -<p>“It will not be unkind to deny him such qualifications, -especially now, for did he not tell his -friends at the London banquet: ‘During all -these (seven) years I have been busy in the blacksmith’s -shop (of the editor’s room) and I do not -hear the noise that is made by the hammers all -around me’—nor, it might be added, does he hear -what is going on outside the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> forge.</p> - -<p>“Meantime, we bespeak the attention of all the -Catholic theologians in every part of the world -to the preposterous invitation to come to hear the -last word about ‘the development of theology’ in -the Catholic Church from a scholar whose claim -to theological distinction is that ‘he has written -about Fénélon and Pascal.’ The <cite>Britannica</cite> -shows scant respect to Catholic scholarship and -Catholic intelligence.”</p> - -<p>Father Campbell then devotes several pages to -a specific indictment of the misstatements and the -glaring errors to be found in several of the articles -relating to the Catholic Church. He quotes eight -instances of St. Cyres’ inaccurate and personal -accusations, and also many passages from the articles -on <cite>Papacy</cite>, <cite>Celibacy</cite> and <cite>St. Catherine of -Siena</cite>—passages which show the low and biased<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[208]</a></span> -standard of scholarship by which they were written. -The injustice contained in them is obvious -even to a superficial student of history. At the -close of these quotations he accuses the <cite>Britannica</cite> -of being neither up-to-date, fair, nor well-informed. -“It repeats old calumnies that have -been a thousand times refuted, and it persistently -selects the Church’s enemies who hold her up to -ridicule and contempt. We are sorry for those -who have been lavish in their praises of a book -which is so defective, so prejudiced, so misleading -and so insulting.”</p> - -<p>It seems that while the <cite>Britannica’s</cite> contributions -to the general misinformation of the world -were being discussed, the editor wrote to one of -his subscribers saying that the Catholics were very -much vexed because the article on the Jesuits was -not “sufficiently eulogistic.”</p> - -<p>“He is evidently unaware,” Father Campbell -goes on to comment, “that the Society of Jesus -is sufficiently known both in the Church and the -world not to need a monument in the graveyard -of the <cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. Not the humblest -Brother in the Order expected anything but -calumny and abuse when he saw appended to -the article the initials of the well-known assassins -of the Society’s reputation. Not one was surprised, -much less displeased, at the absence of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[209]</a></span> -eulogy, sufficient or otherwise; but, on the contrary, -they were all amazed to find the loudly -trumpeted commercial enterprise, which had been -so persistently clamorous of its possession of the -most recent results of research in every department -of learning, endeavoring to palm off on the -public such shopworn travesties of historical and -religious truth. The editor is mistaken if he -thinks they pouted. Old and scarred veterans are -averse to being patted on the back by their -enemies.</p> - -<p>“It is not, however, the ill-judged gibe that -compels us to revert to the Society, as much as -the suspicion that the editor of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> seems to fancy that we had nothing -to say beyond calling attention to his dilapidated -bibliography, which he labels with the very offensive -title of ‘the bibliography of <em>Jesuitism</em>’—a -term which is as incorrect as it is insulting—or -that we merely objected to the employment of -two dead and discredited witnesses to tell the -world what kind of an organization the Society is.</p> - -<p>“It may be, moreover, that we misjudged a certain -portion of the reading public in treating the -subject so lightly, and as the Encyclopædia is continually -reiterating the assertion that it has no -‘bias’ and that its statement of facts is purely ‘objective,’ -a few concrete examples of the opposite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[210]</a></span> -kind of treatment—the one commonly employed—may -not be out of place.</p> - -<p>“We are told, for instance, that ‘the Jesuits had -their share, direct or indirect, in the embroiling -of States, in concocting conspiracies and in kindling -wars. They were responsible by their -theoretical teachings in theological schools for -not a few assassinations’ (340). ‘They powerfully -aided the revolution which placed the Duke -of Braganza on the throne of Portugal, and their -services were rewarded with the practical control -of ecclesiastical and almost civil affairs in that -kingdom for nearly one hundred years’ (344). -‘Their war against the Jansenists did not cease -till the very walls of Port Royal were demolished -in 1710, even to the very abbey church itself, and -the bodies of the dead taken with every mark of -insult from their graves and literally flung to the -dogs to devour’ (345). ‘In Japan the Jesuits -died with their converts bravely as martyrs to -the Faith, yet it is impossible to acquit them of -a large share of the causes of that overthrow’ -(345). ‘It was about the same time that the -grave scandal of the Chinese and Malabar rites -began to attract attention in Europe and to make -thinking men ask seriously whether the Jesuit -missionaries in those parts taught anything which -could fairly be called Christianity at all’<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[211]</a></span> -(348). ‘The political schemings of Parsons in -England was an object lesson to the rest of Europe -of a restless ambition and a lust of domination -which were to find many imitators’ (348). -‘The General of the Order drove away six thousand -exiled Jesuit priests from the coast of Italy, -and made them pass several months of suffering -on crowded vessels at sea to increase public sympathy, -but the actual result was blame for the -cruelty with which he had enhanced their misfortunes’ -(346). ‘Clement XIV, who suppressed -them, is said to have died of poison, but Tanucci -and two others entirely acquit the Jesuits.’ -‘They are accountable in no small degree in -France, as in England, for alienating the minds -of men from the religion for which they professed -to work’ (345).</p> - -<p>“Very little of this can be characterized as -‘eulogistic,’ especially as interwoven in the story -are malignant insinuations, incomplete and distorted -statements, suppressions of truth, gross -errors of fact, and a continual injection of personal -venom which makes the argument not an -‘unbiased and objective presentment’ of the case, -but the plea of a prejudiced prosecuting and -persecuting attorney endeavoring by false testimony -to convict before the bar of public opinion -an alleged culprit, whose destruction he is trying<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[212]</a></span> -to accomplish with an uncanny sort of delight.”</p> - -<p>After having adduced a long list of instances -which “reveal the rancor and ignorance of many -of the writers hired by the Encyclopædia,” the -article then points out “the fundamental untruthfulness” -on which the <cite>Britannica</cite> is built. In a -letter written by the Encyclopædia’s editor appears -the following specious explanation: “Extreme -care was taken by the editors, and especially -by the editor responsible for the theological side -of the work, that every subject, either directly or -indirectly concerned with religion, should as far -as possible be objective and not subjective in <em>their</em> -presentation. The majority of the articles on the -various Churches and their beliefs were written -by members within the several communions, and, -if not so written, were submitted to those most -competent to judge, for criticism and, if need be, -correction.”</p> - -<p>Father Campbell in his answer to this letter -says: “Without animadverting on the peculiar -use of the English language by the learned English -editor who tells us that ‘<em>every</em> subject’ should -be ‘objective’ in <em>their</em> presentation, we do not -hesitate to challenge absolutely the assertion that -‘the majority of the articles on the various -Churches were written by members within the several -communions, and if not so written were submitted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[213]</a></span> -to those most competent to judge, for -criticism and, if need be, for correction.’ Such a -pretence is simply amazing, and thoroughly perplexed, -we asked: What are we supposed to -understand when we are informed that ‘the <em>majority</em> -of the articles on the various Churches and -their beliefs were written by members within the -several communions’?</p> - -<p>“Was the article on <cite>The Roman Catholic -Church</cite> written by a Catholic? Was the individual -who accumulated and put into print all -those vile aspersions on the Popes, the saints, the -sacraments, the doctrines of the Church, a Catholic? -Were the other articles on <cite>Casuistry</cite>, <cite>Celibacy</cite>, -<cite>St. Catherine of Siena</cite>, and <cite>Mary</cite>, the -mother of Jesus, written by a Catholic? The -supposition is simply inconceivable, and it calls -for more than the unlimited assurance of the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica</cite> to compel us to accept it.</p> - -<p>“But ‘they were submitted to the most competent -judge for criticism and, if need be, correction.’ -Were they submitted to any judge at all, -or to any man of sense, before they were sent off -to be printed and scattered throughout the English -speaking world? Is it permissible to imagine -for a moment that any Catholic could have read -some of those pages and not have been filled with -horror at the multiplied and studied insults to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[214]</a></span> -everything he holds most sacred in his religion? -Or did ‘the editor responsible for the theological -side of the work’ reserve for himself the right to -reject or accept whatever recommended itself to -his superior judgment?”</p> - -<p>The article then points out that “far from -being just to Catholics, the <cite>Britannica</cite> pointedly -and persistently discriminated against them.” -The article on the Episcopalians was assigned to -the Rev. Dr. D. D. Addison, Rector of All Saints, -Brookline, Mass.; that on Methodists to the Rev. -Dr. J. M. Buckley, Editor of the <cite>Christian Advocate</cite>, -New York; that on the Baptists to the -Rev. Newton Herbert Marshall, Baptist Church, -Hampstead, England; that on the Jews to Israel -Abrahams, formerly President of the Jewish Historical -Society and now Reader on Talmudic and -Rabbinic Literature in Cambridge, and so on for -the Presbyterians, Unitarians, Lutherans, etc. -But in the case of the Catholic Church not only its -history but its theology was given to a critic who -was neither a theologian, nor a cleric, nor even -a Catholic, and who, as Father Campbell notes, -is not known outside of his little London coterie.</p> - -<p>The <cite>Britannica’s</cite> editor also apologized for his -encyclopædia by stating that “Father Braun, -S. J., has <em>assisted</em> us in our article on <cite>Vestments</cite>, -and that Father Delehaye, S. J., has contributed,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[215]</a></span> -among other articles, those on <cite>The Bollandists -and Canonization</cite>. Abbé Boudinhon and Mgr. -Duchesne, and Luchaire and Ludwig von Pastor -and Dr. Kraus have also contributed, and Abbot -Butler, O. S. B., has written on the Augustinians, -Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians, Dominicans -and Franciscans”; and, finally: “The new -<cite>Britannica</cite> has had the honor of having as a contributor -His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, -Archbishop of Baltimore, who has written of the -Roman Catholic Church in America.”</p> - -<p>“But, after all,” answers Father Campbell, “it -was not a very generous concession to let Father -Joseph Braun, S. J., <cite>Staatsexamen als Religionsoberlehren -für Gymnasien</cite>, University of Bonn, -<em>assist</em> the editors in the very safe article on <cite>Vestments</cite>, -nor to let the Bollandists write a column -on their publication, which has been going on for -three or four hundred years. The list of those -who wrote on the <cite>Papacy</cite> is no doubt respectable -in ability if not in number, but we note that the -editor is careful to say that the writers of that -article were ‘<em>principally</em>’ Roman Catholics.</p> - -<p>“Again we are moved to ask why should a -Benedictine, distinguished though he be, have assigned -to him the history of the Augustinians, -Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.? Were there no -men in those great and learned orders to tell what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[216]</a></span> -they must have known better than even the erudite -Benedictine? Nor will it avail to tell us -that His Eminence of Baltimore wrote <cite>The History -of the Roman Catholic Church in the United -States</cite>, when that article comprises only a column -of statistics, preceded by two paragraphs, one on -the early missions, and the other on the settlement -of Lord Baltimore. No one more than the illustrious -and learned churchman would have resented -calling such a mere compilation of figures -a <cite>History of the Catholic Church in the United -States</cite>, and no one would be more shocked than he -by the propinquity of his restricted article to the -prolix and shameless one to which it is annexed.”</p> - -<p>Here in brief is an account of the “impartial” -manner in which Catholicism is recorded and described -in that “supreme” book of knowledge, the -<cite>Encyclopædia Britannica</cite>. And I set down this -record here not because it is exceptional but, to -the contrary, because it is representative of the -way in which the world’s culture (outside of England), -and especially the culture of America, is -treated.</p> - -<p>The intellectual prejudice and contempt of -England for America is even greater if anything -than England’s religious prejudice and contempt -for Catholicism; and this fact should be borne in -mind when you consult the <cite>Britannica</cite> for knowledge.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[217]</a></span> -It will not give you even scholarly or objective -information: it will advise you, by constant -insinuation and intimation, as well as by -direct statement, that English culture and achievement -represent the transcendent glories of the -world, and that the great men and great accomplishments -of other nations are of minor importance. -No more fatal intellectual danger to -America can be readily conceived than this distorted, -insular, incomplete, and aggressively British -reference work.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[218]</a></span></p> - -<h2 id="CHAPTER_XII">XII<br /> -<span class="smaller">TWO HUNDRED OMISSIONS</span></h2> - -<p>The following list contains two hundred of -the many hundreds of writers, painters, musicians -and scientists who are denied biographies in the -<cite>Britannica</cite>. There is not a name here which -should not be in an encyclopædia which claims -for itself the completeness which the <cite>Britannica</cite> -claims. Many of the names stand in the forefront -of modern culture. Their omission is nothing -short of preposterous, and can be accounted -for only on the grounds of ignorance or prejudice. -In either case, they render the encyclopædia inadequate -as an up-to-date and comprehensive reference -work.</p> - -<p>It will be noted that not one of these names is -English, and that America has suffered from neglect -in a most outrageous fashion. After reading -the flamboyant statements made in the <cite>Encyclopædia -Britannica’s</cite> advertising, glance down this -list. Then decide for yourself whether or not the -statements are accurate.</p> - -<p>Objection may be raised to some of the following<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[219]</a></span> -names on the ground that they are not of sufficient -importance to be included in an encyclopædia, -and that their omission cannot be held to -the discredit of the <cite>Britannica</cite>. In answer let me -state that for every name listed here as being denied -a biography, there are one or two, and, in -the majority of cases, many, Englishmen in the -same field who are admittedly inferior and yet -who are given detailed and generally laudatory -biographies.</p> - -<h3>LITERATURE</h3> - -<ul> -<li>“A. E.” (George W. Russell)</li> -<li>Andreiev</li> -<li>Artzibashef</li> -<li>Hermann Bahr</li> -<li>Henri Bernstein</li> -<li>Otto Julius Bierbaum</li> -<li>Ambrose Bierce</li> -<li>Helene Böhlau</li> -<li>Henry Bordeaux</li> -<li>René Boylesve</li> -<li>Enrico Butti</li> -<li>Cammaerts</li> -<li>Capuana</li> -<li>Bliss Carman</li> -<li>Winston Churchill</li> -<li>Pierre de Coulevain</li> -<li>Richard Dehmel</li> -<li>Margaret Deland</li> -<li>Grazia Deledda</li> -<li>Theodore Dreiser</li> -<li>Eekhoud</li> -<li>Clyde Fitch</li> -<li>Paul Fort</li> -<li>Gustav Frenssen</li> -<li>Fröding</li> -<li>Fucini (Tanfucio Neri)</li> -<li>Garshin</li> -<li>Stefan George</li> -<li>René de Ghil</li> -<li>Giacosa</li> -<li>Ellen Glasgow</li> -<li>Rémy de Gourmont</li> -<li>Robert Grant</li> -<li>Lady Gregory</li> -<li>Grigorovich</li> -<li>Hartleben</li> -<li>Heidenstam</li> -<li>Hirschfeld</li> -<li>Hugo von Hofmannsthal</li> -<li>Arno Holz</li> -<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[220]</a></span>Richard Hovey</li> -<li>Bronson Howard</li> -<li>Ricarda Huch</li> -<li>James Huneker</li> -<li>Douglas Hyde</li> -<li>Lionel Johnson</li> -<li>Karlfeldt</li> -<li>Charles Klein</li> -<li>Korolenko</li> -<li>Kuprin</li> -<li>Percy MacKaye</li> -<li>Emilio de Marchi</li> -<li>Ferdinando Martini</li> -<li>Stuart Merrill</li> -<li>William Vaughn Moody</li> -<li>Nencioni</li> -<li>Standish O’Grady</li> -<li>Ompteda</li> -<li>Panzacchi</li> -<li>Giovanni Pascoli</li> -<li>David Graham Phillips</li> -<li>Wilhelm von Polenz</li> -<li>Rapisardi</li> -<li>Edwin Arlington Robinson</li> -<li>Romain Rolland</li> -<li>T. W. Rolleston</li> -<li>Rovetta</li> -<li>Albert Samain</li> -<li>George Santayana</li> -<li>Johannes Schlaf</li> -<li>Schnitzler</li> -<li>Severin</li> -<li>Signoret</li> -<li>Synge</li> -<li>John Bannister Tabb</li> -<li>Tchekhoff</li> -<li>Gherardi del Testa</li> -<li>Jérôme and Jean Tharaud</li> -<li>Ludwig Thoma</li> -<li>Augustus Thomas</li> -<li>Tinayre</li> -<li>Katherine Tynan</li> -<li>Veressayeff</li> -<li>Clara Viebig</li> -<li>Annie Vivanti</li> -<li>Wackenroder</li> -<li>Wedekind</li> -<li>Edith Wharton</li> -<li>Owen Wister</li> -<li>Ernst von Wolzogen</li> -</ul> - -<h3>PAINTING</h3> - -<ul> -<li>George Bellows</li> -<li>Carrière</li> -<li>Mary Cassatt</li> -<li>Cézanne</li> -<li>Louis Corinth</li> -<li>Maurice Denis</li> -<li>Gauguin</li> -<li>Habermann</li> -<li>C. W. Hawthorne</li> -<li>Robert Henri</li> -<li>Hodler</li> -<li>Sergeant Kendall</li> -<li>Ludwig Knaus</li> -<li>Krüger</li> -<li>Jean Paul Laurens</li> -<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[221]</a></span>Leibl</li> -<li>Von Marées</li> -<li>René Ménard</li> -<li>Redon</li> -<li>Charles Shuch</li> -<li>Lucien Simon</li> -<li>Steinlen</li> -<li>Toulouse-Lautrec</li> -<li>Trübner</li> -<li>Twachtman</li> -<li>Van Gogh</li> -<li>Vallotton</li> -<li>Zorn</li> -</ul> - -<h3>MUSIC</h3> - -<ul> -<li>d’Albert</li> -<li>Arensky</li> -<li>Mrs. Beach</li> -<li>Busoni</li> -<li>Buxtehude</li> -<li>Charpentier</li> -<li>Frederick Converse</li> -<li>Cui</li> -<li>Arthur Foote</li> -<li>Grechaninov</li> -<li>Guilmant</li> -<li>Henry K. Hadley</li> -<li>Josef Hofmann</li> -<li>Edgar Stillman Kelly</li> -<li>Kreisler</li> -<li>Leschetitzky</li> -<li>Gustav Mahler</li> -<li>Marschner</li> -<li>Nevin</li> -<li>Nordraak</li> -<li>John Knowles Paine</li> -<li>Horatio Parker</li> -<li>Rachmaninov</li> -<li>Ravel</li> -<li>Max Reger</li> -<li>Nikolaus Rubinstein</li> -<li>Scharwenka brothers</li> -<li>Georg Alfred Schumann</li> -<li>Scriabine</li> -<li>Sibelius</li> -<li>Friedrich Silcher</li> -<li>Sinding</li> -<li>Taneiev</li> -<li>Wolf-Ferrari</li> -</ul> - -<h3>SCIENCE AND INVENTION</h3> - -<ul> -<li>William Beaumont</li> -<li>John Shaw Billings</li> -<li>Luther Burbank</li> -<li>George W. Crile</li> -<li>Harvey Cushing</li> -<li>Rudolph Diesel</li> -<li>Daniel Drake</li> -<li>Ehrlich</li> -<li>Simon Flexner</li> -<li>W. W. Gerhard</li> -<li>Samuel David Gross</li> -<li>William S. Halsted</li> -<li>Wilhelm His</li> -<li>Abraham Jacobi</li> -<li>Rudolph Leuckart</li> -<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[222]</a></span>Franz Leydig</li> -<li>Jacques Loeb</li> -<li>Percival Lowell</li> -<li>Lyonet (Lyonnet)</li> -<li>S. J. Meltzer</li> -<li>Metchnikoff</li> -<li>T. H. Morgan</li> -<li>Joseph O’Dwyer</li> -<li>Ramón y Cajal</li> -<li>Nicholas Senn</li> -<li>Marion Sims</li> -<li>Theobald Smith</li> -<li>W. H. Welch</li> -<li>Orville Wright</li> -<li>Wilbur Wright</li> -</ul> - -<h3>PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY</h3> - -<ul> -<li>Ardigò</li> -<li>Bergson</li> -<li>Boutroux</li> -<li>Hermann Cohen</li> -<li>John Dewey</li> -<li>Edelmann</li> -<li>Freud</li> -<li>Guyau</li> -<li>G. Stanley Hall</li> -<li>Hildebrand</li> -<li>Jung</li> -<li>Külpe</li> -<li>Lipps</li> -<li>Josiah Royce</li> -<li>Alois Riehl</li> -<li>Sibbern</li> -<li>Soloviov</li> -<li>Tetans</li> -<li>Windelband</li> -</ul> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Misinforming a Nation, by Willard Huntington Wright - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MISINFORMING A NATION *** - -***** This file should be named 60985-h.htm or 60985-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/0/9/8/60985/ - -Produced by WebRover, MWS and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |